RUF: Excluding the Affected

The Armed Forces are non-deliberative, subordinate to civilian authority, and their role is not political; however, it is another matter to request their non-participation because the technical opinions they may present are contrary to expectations.

El Líbero, August 4, 2023

The Rules on the Use of Force (RUF) are back in public debate, this time with more politics than ever: The Executive notifying military institution leaders not to attend the invitation extended by Congress, arguing that they do not want to expose the Armed Forces to political discussion, and a Minister of the Interior calling for caution in opinions as limits are being placed on the military and Carabineros.

There is no doubt that armed institutions should be kept out of political discussion, but this must occur for the right reasons. They are non-deliberative, subordinate to civilian authority, and their role is not political; however, it is another matter to request their non-participation because the technical opinions they may present are contrary to expectations.

Here appears a concept that is fundamental in this type of debate: technical opinions, as regulating the use of force cannot be influenced by the trust or distrust of politicians towards the institutions that hold the monopoly on it. And, in this particular case, distrust towards the military and police could be clouding the debate, directly impacting the drafting of the bill.

The RUF exist because the use of force must occur within a legal framework, not because limits are being ‘placed’ as Minister Tohá stated. Force is used in a context of legitimate defense, proportionality, and rationality. Police and military exist to protect us from threats within national territory and those that come from abroad. The way to do this is by using force.

In this sense, the debate on the use of force should include relevant technical opinions and not hide behind the protection of a particular institution to avoid hearing them, as opinions are just that; whether to take them into account or not is up to the legislators.

The discussion on the actions of the Armed Forces in public order matters has been previously addressed; however, it is important to mention that a project like this must be clear enough not to inhibit military action and to make a real contribution to national security.

Confusions between proportionality and rationality must also be cleared up. While the former refers to the means to control the situation, the latter deals with the rational use of those means considering the threat faced and how to control it. It should not be confused with equivalence, as proportionality does not imply equality of force. Furthermore, the gradual use of force by police is very different from that in the military context, as they respond to different procedures and objectives.

Therefore, a debate like this must necessarily consider technical knowledge. The problem is that behind this discussion lie the ideological prejudices of those who govern us.

Pilar Lizana
Researcher at AthenaLab

Source: El Líbero