The minister, the Commandant and the cadets: Scandal and the mediation of Australian civil–military relations

Abstract

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has recently undergone the most comprehensive review of its organizational culture since federation. Western militaries across the USA, Canada and the UK are similarly engaged. Military misconduct, including rape, assault and the long traditions of hazing and bastardization, have been increasingly exposed, engaging civil society, agitating government and undermining military integrity. The Skype Affair is described as a particularly important military misconduct scandal that brought these relations, and ruling relations more specifically, into focus. The article describes the contest over democratic control of the armed forces initiated when the jurisdictions and authority of the Defence Minister, the Chief of Defence and the Commandant of the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) converged over the management of this military scandal. This article looks at how relations between Australian civil society, the military and the state are affected by the varying engagements of these sectors with the question of violence in the military and, subsequently, military modernization. The news-mediated discourse is one that highlights the structural split of civilmilitary relations, between two white masculinized institutions in a context of distinct cultural divergence over the rule of nation.

The Military Scandal: Its Definition, Dynamics, and Significance

“…Recently, military scandals, as with scandals more generally, are attracting increased scholarly attention (Baugut, 2017; Crosbie, 2015; Crosbie & Sass, 2017; Habiba, 2017; Haller et al, 2018; Tumber & Waisbord, 2019; Wadham, 2016). Spurred by both growing scholarship on media–military relations (Corner & Parry, 2017; Hoskins & O’Loughlin, 2015; Maltby, 2012a, 2012b) and major episodes (Crosbie & Kleykamp, 2018) such as the HMS Vigilant (Wootson, 2017), “Fat Leonard” (Back, 2019), “Marines United” (Chappell, 2017), and the “Skype” scandal in Australia (Habiba, 2017; Wadham, 2016), studies of military scandals have raised both ontological and epistemological questions: What are military scandals? How can they be studied?…”

“…Through scandals, state authorities and civil society can try to regulate the military institution while the latter works to maintain institutional autonomy by resisting external interventions and trying to control outcomes. Herein, a strong account of the military scandal is important for understanding modern military institutions and how they are reproduced and reformed in mediatized societies (Johnson, 2017; Maltby, 2012a, 2012b; Wadham, 2016).…”

“…Hence, they sometimes serve as uncommon case studies for media and communications research. Recently though, scholars such as Crosbie (2015), Wadham (2016), Habiba (2017), Crosbie and Sass (2017), and Johnson (2017) have sought to clarify and articulate the significance of military scandals. These valuable contributions go some way toward demystifying this phenomenon, but the accounts presented are brief and mainly focus on specific episodes.…”

“…The article will clarify the nature, dynamics, and significance of military scandals and provide scholars who study the military institution with a framework for analyzing this phenomenon. We argue that military scandals are episodes of mediatized public moral conflict concerning transgressions that, to greater or lesser extents, precipitate interactions: within the military institution and its attendant bureaucracies (Crosbie & Sass, 2017, p. 126; Wadham, 2016, pp. 555, 558–589), between the “masculinised fraternities of the state and the military” (Wadham, 2016, p. 552), and between the military and civil society within the mediatized public sphere (Maltby, 2012a, 2012b).…”

“…We argue that military scandals are episodes of mediatized public moral conflict concerning transgressions that, to greater or lesser extents, precipitate interactions: within the military institution and its attendant bureaucracies (Crosbie & Sass, 2017, p. 126; Wadham, 2016, pp. 555, 558–589), between the “masculinised fraternities of the state and the military” (Wadham, 2016, p. 552), and between the military and civil society within the mediatized public sphere (Maltby, 2012a, 2012b). By studying such episodes, we contend that scholars can gain insight into the military institution and its relationships with the state and society.…”