Mon séjour en Afrique du Sud (Cape Town)

At an annual cost to taxpayers of about R500 000 per soldier (R32bn for 2009-10), the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) represents hugely expensive unskilled labour. That money could instead be far more usefully applied to improve salaries for public service doctors and teachers.

Any notion that Zimbabwe or Lesotho (or the US) is about attack SA is plainly absurd. So what purpose does the SANDF serve beyond the outdated assumption that every country needs an army? Every army in Africa, ours included, is militarily a joke except, of course, to civilians terrorised by ill- disciplined, abusive soldiers.

Military dictatorships on our continent also prove that armies without foreign wars to fight are politically dangerous. Bored soldiers are prone to believe that they can better run the government than can politicians — as proved yet again this week in the tragic example of Honduras, the original “banana republic.”

For that very reason, neighbouring Costa Rica abolished its army back in 1949, and for 60 years has been a thriving and prosperous democracy. Instead of squandering money on armaments and the military, Costa Rica has used the money saved to improve its public health and education. As a result, Costa Rica’s per capita income is double that of other Central American countries.

Similarly Mauritius, without an army, although impoverished when it gained independence 40 years ago, is now one of Africa’s few success stories. In addition, Mauritius has international influence far beyond the clout of its tiny economy.

Having appallingly mismanaged both the arms deal and the SANDF, it’s not surprising that the government prefers to conceal the shambles from the citizenry (Is SANDF fit to fight, asks DA, June 29).

SA would do well to adopt the Costa Rican and Mauritian precedents, and to disband the SANDF. In so doing, albeit by default, SA could even make a virtue out of chaos.