Lawrence Freedman
Introduction: Command as Politics
The word ‘command’ comes from the Latin mandare, meaning to commit or entrust, from which we also get ‘mandate’. The verb sense led to the noun sense, which was from the start synonymous with an order, but one that came with special authority. Contemporary dictionary definitions still point to authoritative orders, to be obeyed without question. The British Army has defined command as ‘the authority which an individual in military service lawfully exercises over subordinates by rank or assignment’. It ‘embraces authority, responsibility and accountability’, has ‘a legal and constitutional status’, and enables individuals ‘to influence events and order subordinates to implement decisions’.1
In a chain of command, orders start at the top and then cascade down until they reach the lowliest individuals. Below the supreme command, those in the chain are always accountable to someone at a higher level for what they do with the orders they receive, and for the quality of the orders they issue. Those on the receiving end of orders may have inner doubts and uncertainties, or even make known their misgivings openly, but the orders must still be followed and followed well. Commands are therefore much more than requests or suggestions, and, when a command is challenged, it is not only the wisdom of a particular instruction that is questioned, but also, potentially, the whole hierarchical structure behind it. To disobey an order is insubordination; to walk away is desertion; to depose a commander is mutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment