Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel Chapter 5: Civil and Political Rights Introduction: Issues at Stake As citizens in uniform, armed forces personnel enjoy the same fundamental rights as other citizens, including the civil and political rights to participate in public life, to join and support political parties, to vote and to demonstrate. Many states, however, have concerns that political activities by members of the armed forces can undermine discipline in and compromise the political neutrality of armed forces, and that certain such activities are incompatible with the military profession. For these reasons, the political neutrality of service personnel is a controversial issue for all military systems. While the rules on political neutrality within the armed forces are similar across the OSCE region, the extent of the obligation to refrain from political activities outside the armed forces varies widely. Similarly, restrictions are often imposed on service personnel’s freedom of speech, in part because of the need for the armed forces to be seen as politically neutral, and partly to prevent dissent and insubordination. These topics are discussed in more detail in “Chapter 6: Freedom of Expression”, on “Freedom of Expression”. This chapter first deals with the arguments concerning restrictions on political rights. It then addresses the scope of relevant international human rights standards, as well as limitations on the right to vote, to stand for office and to participate in political demonstrations. Examples are provided of the different approaches taken by OSCE participating States to maintain political neutrality, ranging from less restrictive approaches to those that impose strict standards of neutrality and restrict rights accordingly. The most frequent limitations on the political activities of armed forces members are: • prohibitions on participation and membership in political parties; • prohibitions on eligibility for elected political office; and • prohibitions on taking part in public demonstrations while in uniform. 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 independent and above political controversy, and to be perceived as such. Neutrality helps to ensure that voters alone determine who governs the state. In many transitional democracies, the armed forces may be viewed primarily through their historical association with the dominant political party and ideology. In such contexts, the transition to democratic politics requires stringent neutrality on the part of the armed forces, in order to ensure a break with past associations and practices and to establish public confidence in the armed forces. Second, restrictions are aimed at preventing political controversy within the armed forces that could detract from their effectiveness and morale. In particular, this applies to criticism of the country’s political leadership or of the tasks assigned to the military by elected leaders. 76