Dont write about what you dont fully understand! The article titled “The Price of Shortcuts: Why Military Tradition Is Not a Luxury”, authored by Dr Fred M’membe, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Quartermaster (Q) Commissioning, its purpose and its established traditions within the Zambia Army. The suggestion that conducting […]

Dont write about what you dont fully understand!

The article titled “The Price of Shortcuts: Why Military Tradition Is Not a Luxury”, authored by Dr Fred M’membe, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Quartermaster (Q) Commissioning, its purpose and its established traditions within the Zambia Army.

The suggestion that conducting a ‘Q’Commissioning graduation indoors amounts to a “shortcut” or represents a departure from military tradition is not supported by the Zambia Army history and practice of Q Commissioning.

First and foremost, Q Commissioning is not the same as the regular direct-entry commissioning of Officer Cadets. Traditionally, it has provided a pathway for experienced Warrant Officers, often those with 15 or more years of military service, to receive commissions based on their accumulated experience, professional knowledge and specialist skills.

Unlike regular Officers, whose career progression may be centred largely on conventional command appointments, Q Commissioned Officers are generally employed in specialist and functional areas such as quartermaster, logistics, transport, stores, catering, legal services, media, medical services and other related fields. They are commissioned as Lieutenants.

The history of the practice is important in understanding why it exists.

Q Commissioning originated largely from the need to utilise experienced Warrant Officers in specialist areas, particularly within the Ordnance Corps, where there was historically a shortage of commissioned Officers.

In its earlier form, suitably qualified Warrant Officers could be converted to Q Commissioned Officers through Special Publications only,  without necessarily undergoing the conventional Officer Cadet training undertaken by regular entrants.

As the need for experienced commissioned personnel expanded to other corps and specialist fields, the system evolved.

Candidates subsequently began undergoing a prescribed period of Officer Cadet training before graduating and receiving their commissions.

It is therefore misleading to assess a Q Commissioning ceremony exclusively through the lens of the conventional regular Officer Cadet pass-out parade.

There is also a clear historical precedent that challenges the assertion made in Dr M’membe’s  article.

On 31 May 2014, Q Commissioning graduation was conducted indoors and was presided over by the then Army Commander, Lieutenant General Paul Mihova.

Dr Fred M’embe did not comment on it neither did he make any observations. Why !!

It was a formal and dignified military occasion that brought together Commanders, Officers, Soldiers, invited guests and family members to witness the graduation and commissioning of the candidates.

The ceremony was conducted in a military hall that was appropriately and colourfully decorated, creating an atmosphere of pride, solemnity and military tradition.

The fact that such a ceremony takes place inside a military hall does not make it any less military, dignified or significant.

It is therefore unfortunate to characterise the recent ceremony as a “shortcut” without first establishing whether an outdoor parade is, in fact, a mandatory requirement for Q Commissioning.

Ceremonial practices must be understood within their particular institutional and historical context. What applies to a regular Officer Cadet commissioning or pass-out parade should not automatically be imposed on a Q Commissioning graduation, which has its own established traditions.

Military tradition certainly deserves respect. But tradition must be accompanied by knowledge, accuracy and historical context.

Otherwise, an attempt to defend tradition can inadvertently result in the very misinformation that responsible commentary should seek to avoid.

The author is therefore respectfully encouraged to undertake more thorough research before presenting himself as an authority on specialised military matters.

There is nothing wrong with questioning how a military ceremony is conducted or seeking clarification from the appropriate authorities. Indeed, informed scrutiny can be healthy.

The difficulty arises when an assumption is presented as an established military fact.

Such assertions can unnecessarily mislead the public and, more importantly, young and inexperienced Officers and Soldiers who may not yet have sufficient institutional knowledge to distinguish between established practice, personal opinion and speculation.

Criticism of military institutions can be constructive when it is informed and evidence-based.

However, describing an established form of Q Commissioning as a “shortcut” without adequately understanding its history risks creating precisely the confusion that responsible military commentary should seek to prevent.

We therefore want to caution those that deliberately are claiming to be experts on military traditions  to avoid misleading the public. The hate for the Army Commander and desire to mislead and incite the  young Soldiers could lead to instability in the nation.

The issue, therefore, is not whether military tradition matters, it unquestionably does.  The real issue is whether those invoking that traditions have taken the time to understand the particular tradition about which they are writing.

Before declaring that the Army has abandoned its tradition, one should first take the time to establish what that tradition actually is.

The author is advised to stop writing what he does not understand.

Yesterday’s event was a colorful ceremony by the Zambia Army’s standards, with the largest number ever.

Sydney MWEWA
Colonel
Zambia Army Spokesperson