Chapter 8 Civil and Political Rights In principle, soldiers, as citizens in uniform, enjoy the same fundamental rights as every citizen. Many countries’ armed forces consider, however, that political activities are detrimental to the need for discipline and are incompatible with the military profession. For this reason, the political neutrality of soldiers is a controversial issue for all military systems. While the rules on political neutrality within the armed forces are fairly similar, the extent of the obligation to refrain from political activities outside the armed forces varies widely. In a related fashion, restrictions are often imposed on the freedom of speech of the military, in part because of the need for them to be seen as politically neutral and, partly, to prevent dissent and insubordination. This chapter first deals with the arguments concerning restrictions on political rights. It then addresses limitations on rights concerning political neutrality that affect the rights to vote, to stand for office, and to participate in political demonstrations, as well as the freedom of expression. Examples are provided of different approaches by OSCE participating States towards political neutrality and freedom of expression, ranging from those that are less restrictive to those that impose strict standards of neutrality and restrict rights accordingly. 1. Issues at Stake The most frequent limitations on the political activities of members of the armed forces are: • Prohibitions on participation in political parties; • Prohibitions on eligibility for elected political office; • Prohibitions on taking part in public demonstrations while in uniform; • Restrictions on the freedom of expression. There are several justifications for restrictions of this kind. First, the armed forces, as defenders of territorial integrity and the constitutional order, need to be seen to be independent and above political controversy. Neutrality helps to ensure that voters alone determine who is to govern the state. In many transitional democracies, the armed forces have had a tainted and repressive history of association with the dominant political party, and neutrality requirements are a means of breaking with the past. Second, restrictions are aimed at preventing political controversy within the armed forces that could detract from their effectiveness and morale, particularly in the case of criticism of the country’s political leadership or of the tasks assigned to the military by elected leaders. Third, effective civilian control and accountability for the armed forces require a separation of the political and military spheres. If members of the armed forces are significant actors within the political sphere, it will undermine democratic accountability and create conflicts of interest. Consequently, restrictions may be necessary to prevent the active involvement of members of the armed forces in politics. Although democratic societies usually regard a person’s political views as their own private affair, there may be a limited case for debarring people with extreme political views or 56 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel