Since ‘professionalisation’, the armed forces have recruited personnel on fixed-term contracts (53 per cent of their strength), two-thirds of whom will not complete a full career in the services; over half of them will not be eligible for a pension. What should be done for those leaving (8 per cent of the services each year)? The answer is resettlement, but what is that and what is the policy on it? This article looks at the current situation, the questions it raises and possible answers.
Military Resettlement: Myth or Reality?
It is true that one of the main attractions of a service career is a grandeur that can lead to sacrifice and mask often restrictive servitude. In the past the military calling had other attractions, not the least of which was professional stability. If one survived (and had not murdered one’s parents) one stayed in the army or navy for life, or almost life. If one left it was with pension rights.
If there was a need for very young personnel for a period which was by definition limited, the answer was conscription. But conscription is no more. Our armies are professional. But we still need young people. They return to civil life after a period which is longer than the old conscription, but shorter than the minimum of 15 years to be eligible for a military pension.
So now one does not always choose the profession of arms for life, but for a fraction of life. This was clearly spelt out by the High Commission for Evaluation of the Military Condition (HCECM) in its first report. It underlined the fact that ‘. . . 53 per cent of servicemen . . . are currently on short-term contracts, compared with only 7 per cent in the rest of the public service’.
Il reste 93 % de l'article à lire
