“Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.” Dr Johnson’s famous saying may or may not broadly hold as true to day as in his own time. But the attitude certainly seems to endure when it comes to the Ministry of Defence.
Yesterday’s mini-reshuffle has seen the Government receive a barrage of criticism for appointing Grant Shapps, a man with no military background, to replace Ben Wallace as Defence Secretary.
Downing Street has hit back, pointing out that some of the most effective holders of the post – Michael Heseltine under Margaret Thatcher, say, or George Robertson under Tony Blair – have had civilian backgrounds. Which is true.
But notwithstanding that, it is in any event a very strange complaint, especially for a more often than not anti-technocratic party such as the Conservatives. Few of the people criticising Shapps’ appointment seem to feel strongly that the Department of Health should be led by a doctor, nor the Department for Education by a teacher, nor the Rural Affairs brief reserved to farmers.
Which is sensible, because such a policy would a) be hard to reconcile with civilian government in a parliamentary democracy and b) very likely make each department even more vulnerable to regulatory capture and déformation professionnelle than even they are at present.
So why should Defence be any different? For starters, the Armed Forces themselves apparently prefer civilian secretaries of state, in the main, because they are more likely to be even-handed in their treatment of the three services compared to someone with a background as soldier, sailor, or airman.
But more importantly, the defence secretary’s job is to provide political leadership and oversight, and account for the MoD to Parliament. It is emphatically not to provide operational leadership; the UK has had quite enough Gallipolis and Coronels, Norways and Singapores.
Moreover, the single biggest challenge currently facing the department – the bonfire that is defence procurement – is not obviously something an ex-serviceman or woman is best placed to tackle.
If the Prime Minister were filling the position purely on apolitical grounds of technical aptitude (and he isn’t), that would suggest picking somebody with experience of multi-billion-pound deals and complex supply chains, rather than someone who may have driven or fired whatever equipment it is we’re trying to replace. After all, Wallace seems not to have managed to slay this procurement hydra, even whilst being broadly considered a success in the role.
Perhaps there is a case for such a technocratic appointment. However, the historical record of previous efforts to build what Gordon Brown called a “government of all the talents” is not auspicious. Shapps may prove a disappointment as Defence Secretary. But if he does, it won’t be because he has never been a soldier, nor never been at sea.