By Humane Organisations-Africa (HORG-AFRICA)
The security services (Police and Armed Forces) are among the high emotional labour occupations in the world, which implies that they are expected to control their emotions and language regardless of whatever situations they find themselves in.
Hence, we have accepted the notion that being in the security services demands being physically, emotionally, and psychologically tough. This philosophy has been the rallying point around which our understanding and tolerance of happenings both at the training grounds and in the day-to-day lives of men and women in the security services have been built.
We fondly refer to security personnel, especially army officers, as ‘mmarima mma’ a twi phrase that translates as ‘children or sons of men’. By this accolade, we are affirming that personnel of the security services are persevering and stouthearted and can thrive through anything. But is that really the case? Are they unbreakable and indefatigable? And all that they are subjected to in training and at post, are they all just ‘Physical Readiness Training’ or toughening strategies? Or should we be re-examining the status quo?
The security services in Ghana have largely escaped public and academic scrutiny in the area of bullying mainly because of the ‘taken-for-granted’ presuppositions that being a soldier requires being able to endure anything (verbal, physical and emotional).
Globally, however, employee relations professionals have for some time now turned their attention to the issue of bullying and harassment and general abuse of rights and dignity in the security services. Research output so far has identified that bullying and sexual harassment occur in the security services with dire consequences on individual well-being as well as performance.
Unfortunately, available research on this phenomenon in the security services is limited to Europe and America. There is little to nothing done within the context (Ghana) and even in Africa about this phenomenon, with the notable exception of emerging South African defence-force studies.
Recent research on the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) found that soldiers are made vulnerable to bullying by the structural inequalities, especially hierarchical relationships, that characterise military service, and concluded that bullying exists in the SANDF and, if left unchecked, may hamper morale, military discipline, and operational effectiveness (Tsewu, 2025).
Though the concept of bullying is not easily detectable or explainable due to the obscure way it presents in the security services, research output so far has identified that bullying and sexual harassment occur in the security services with dire consequences on individual well-being as well as performance.
Research findings indicate suicide is now the second leading cause of death across the Armed Forces, and represents the most frequent traumatic death during armed forces training resulting from bullying. In addition, research has found a high correlation between experience of bullying in the security services and suicidal ideation.
This is a stark contrast to the psychological fitness tests new recruits undergo, which certify them as mentally fit for training and deployment. To worsen matters, up to 60% of military service members who develop a mental health problem do not seek help.
In training, the phenomenon of bullying is often veiled in the ‘initiation’ rite of new recruits. During the Physical Readiness Training (PRT), recruits are subjected to all kinds of hard training to toughen their skin, drive softness out of them, and make them hard to break. Of course, there is also capacity building in the areas of leadership, combat readiness, intelligence gathering, team building, etc.
However, between preparing recruits for the job through Physical Readiness training and the final outcome, there is a thin line which can easily get crossed by Trainers, commanding officers etc. On the other side of this line is bullying. The manifestation of this phenomenon is on a continuum enabled by the power dynamics of the services, which both officially and unofficially promote physical and psychological abuse referred to as ‘hazing’.
Incidence of hazing may include informal, abusive, or humiliating initiation practices that serve no official purpose, cruel treatment, or demeaning behaviour, forced labour, unprovoked verbal assault, ‘punishments’, forced consumption of alcohol, physical assault, shouting or screaming or public degradation.
Hazing is not without consequences. Research has found that hazing can degrade morale, undermine trust in the chain of command, and can result in serious injury or psychological trauma. On the extreme end of the continuum is bullying and sexual harassment, both of which are gross violations of a person’s right to dignity and decent work.
Whereas ‘Hazing’ is a public activity and tends to be enacted during the training period and is perpetrated ONLY by senior officers (training officers, commanding officers, superintendents, commandants) on trainees or new recruits, bullying on the other hand occurs privately and can be perpetrated horizontally between and among peers and vertically between superiors and juniors (subordinates), although research indicates it is mostly perpetrated by those who wield greater authority and power against the weaker or less empowered.
Notably, a 2024 study of 21 Australian Defense Force units found that bullying from multiple sources was more common than bullying from a single source, indicating that where it takes hold, it tends to reflect a wider climate of workplace bullying rather than isolated incidents between two parties.
Bullying continues within the service unless or until there is an intervention, whereas ‘hazing’ ends when the newcomer has been socialized into the service or has been formally placed.
In the security services, 3 factors can foster bullying and sexual harassment. These include toxic leadership, peer mobbing, and perceived organisational support (POS).
Toxic Leadership refers to the abuse of power by superior officers (bullying). Such negative behaviour (bullying) may include degrading treatment, unfair and overly dangerous assignments and postings, arbitrary disciplinary threats, and treatment aimed at an officer by a superior or generally showing the subordinate who is the boss.
Peer mobbing generally tends to involve colleagues ganging up on one individual or even a group of individuals and is usually between officers of similar rank. Causes of peer mobbing can include tribal, political differences, or even religious differences and may involve some members being jealous of another person’s potential or distinct abilities.
Acts perpetrated by mobs may include isolation or social exclusion, mockery or public ridicule, discrimination, cyberbullying and even extreme acts as exposing or refusing to help the target individual in a dangerous situation.
Perceived Organisation Support (for bullying) refers to situations where, either through negligence or overt endorsement, management allows bullying acts to prevail and persist. When management turns a blind eye to acts that do not form part of official training modules or are not necessary for the training or optimum performance of the personnel, it sends the signal that the management, and by extension the service, endorses such behaviours. A culture which endorses “the end justifies the means” is bound to create the seedbed for bullying.
Both toxic leadership and POS are possible high outcomes in the security services because of the hierarchical nature of the security services, where the service protocols and rank both have a requirement of conformity.
Consequences Of Hazing And/Or Bullying
Hazing and bullying both have severe negative psychological and physical consequences on the individuals involved, the service unit, and more gravely on society. Security services play a crucial role in the nation’s safety and well-being. Because of that, the psychological and emotional well-being of its personnel is and should be of national importance, and all stakeholders must direct their attention and support to discuss how to either prevent, mediate, or eliminate its occurrence in the security services.
Generally, research findings have shown that bullying has dire consequences for individuals. These range from negative psychological and/or physical effects for the victim, such as stress, confusion, work phobia, sleeplessness, nervous breakdown, quitting intentions and quitting, revenge tendencies and ill-wishing against perpetrators to corporate consequences such as transferred aggression and learned (negative) behaviour, poor socialization, non-cooperation, counter-productive behaviour, deviance, lower productivity, high health-related costs etc.
For personnel who experience bullying, the experience can generate a disorientation that makes them feel like they are crossing enemy lines within. The unpleasant feeling of combating ‘enemies’ within can paralyze effective critical thinking and intellectual readiness needed for effective police and defense operations.
Research conducted in other contexts among security personnel reveal mental disorder outcomes such as suicidal tendencies, intermittent explosive disorder, PTSD, sexual assault during deployment, physical assault during deployment, and the potential to cause serious injury or death to a loved one etc.
In terms of public safety and security, these outcomes are a serious risk. Security personnel who are traumatized by bullying and hazing can be a danger to themselves and the general public since they not only are trained and skilled in physical combat but are also frequently armed and can obtain firearms.
More importantly, unacceptable levels of hazing and bullying have implications on the dignity of security personnel and infringe on some conventions such as article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states “No one shall bе subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
In spite of the negative outcomes of bullying, research indicates that it is mostly unreported and the following factors account for the non-reportage of bullying in the security services and consequently an indirect endorsement of its continuation:
- The complaint will be dismissed and not believed.
- Complaining is futile as no action will be taken.
- The senior officer always wins.
- The victim will expose themselves to even more targeted bullying.
- It will blemish their careers.
- The individual will be branded a troublemaker.
- They will be seen as weak for complaining.
- The individual will be blamed for the behaviour.
- Perception of medical services and other military sources of help as being in league with the perpetrators or as primarily serving the interests of the Service.
- Lack of knowledge of rights and how to complain.
- Propagation of the culture that such behaviour is part and parcel of being in the forces.
However, since the interior security and the protection of our national borders require the use of personnel who have their heads and hearts in the right frame, it is time for a national debate or discourse on the nature of training and work within the security services. It is time to look at the broader picture not just through the lens of security training protocols but through the psycho-social lens of research and engagement.
The security services must also seek to achieve Goal 8 of the SDGs which seeks to promote the protection of labour rights and promoting safe and secure working environments for all workers ……… and those in precarious employment”
Beyond debate, there is also a legislative model worth learning from. Recent research on the SANDF recommends that South Africa’s Employment Equity Act be amended to define harassment widely enough to include bullying, that its Labour Relations Act be amended so that an employer’s failure to address bullying can constitute an unfair labour practice, and that a national code be adopted under its Occupational Health and Safety Act to address bullying directly.
The same research also cautions that oversight bodies without real enforcement powers can become ‘toothless tigers’ that fail to protect complainants in practice. Ghana’s security services and policymakers would do well to consider similar statutory reform, paired with an oversight mechanism that has actual teeth, rather than relying on internal discipline alone.
This is the mission of Humane Organisations-Africa (HORG-AFRICA).
About Humane Organisations-Africa
HORG-AFRICA is an organisation focused on researching, advocating, and consulting on Care, Compassion, Civility and Career Support in the workplace. These four elements form the bedrock of any organisation’s culture, employee wellbeing and determine the quality of the workplace culture
We stand at the intersection of what an organisation does to and with its personnel and how HRM is practiced with society as the ultimate beneficiary.
Members of HORG-AFRICA are members of the International Association of Workplace Bullying and Harassment.
Contact us on: 0208238694/0204333
Email: [email protected]
