The needs and the opportunities for freedom of expression for the citizen are increasing in every developing country on the path to democracy. Should the solution be the same everywhere? Should access to a trade union, available to the workforce in general, be extended to include certain professional categories, for example to servicemen? Should certain types of freedom of expression that are available to ordinary citizens also be available to those whose job is the maintenance of law and order and the defence of the nation? Should servicemen have a right to be heard, and if so, what sort of right? Various Western democracies have studied the question, and arrived at a variety of answers. France’s solution is not without interest.

Expression and Consultation

The Conseil Supérieur de la Fonction Militaire (CSFM)⁽¹⁾ was created in France in 1969 to satisfy the twin requirements of freedom of expression and of consultation which were making themselves felt in the Armed Forces, without necessarily distinguishing the one from the other with sufficient precision.

The Beginnings of the CSFP

This was in a rather specific context, with three characteristics: the progressive reduction of the possibility of successful individual expression, the total refusal of the authorities and the military establishment to countenance French-style trade unionism, and the quest for an original solution which could remedy the shortcomings of the former and respect the determination of the latter. The idea was to establish a structure for consultation with servicemen–but not for bargaining with them–which would mitigate the problems of the indispensable reorganisation of the Armed Forces. The opportunities for the individual serviceman to express himself through the normal chain of command were not being ignored. The ‘social role’ of the officer existed. The chain of ethical relationships is in itself a form of expression. The plethora of committees allowing junior ranks, within their units or ships, to speak out on questions concerning their wellbeing, food, etc. has a role of some importance. But things have changed ‘at the top’. When each service–leaving aside the Gendarmerie–had its ‘own’ minister, the conditions of each separate service could be more vigorously defended–regardless of the qualities of pugnacity or intelligence of this or that Minister for Defence. Similarly, the centralisation–undoubtedly necessary–of personnel services, and the regulations governing them, into an administrative general secretariat, usually directed by a civilian, sometimes had the controversial effect of removing from officers in the chain of command the responsibility for responding, with the loss of that degree of close awareness of the serviceman’s needs which had existed previously.