Hazing, what a "beast" that no one can cope with. Where are the roots of this bullying, why is there a hazing relationship. In short, I would name the following as the main reasons for bullying:
1. Bullying relationships thrive where there is no real and legitimate leverage of power among sergeants and officers. They say that hazing began in the 60s of the last century. There are reasons to agree with this. These were the last years when the sergeant was a real, not a formal, commander in the army. The sergeant could, according to the regulations, i.e. by law to punish your negligent subordinate, and the punishment was effective - fists were not required for this. Since the 60s, the powers of commanders to apply both punishments and rewards have gradually decreased. Legitimate methods of influencing violators - a guardhouse, a work order, etc., have gone down in history. The training of sergeants began to be carried out not in regimental schools, but in special training units. After the end of the "training", such a sergeant arrived in the troops, but could not really command, because the old-time soldier was more experienced than the newly made sergeant. Real power in the unit (in the absence of officers) passed to "demobels" who did not have statutory powers, only non-statutory powers. It gradually became a system. This is not the fault of the sergeant, but of the top leadership of the armed forces.
2. Gradually, junior officers also lost power over the personnel, at best they began to perform sergeant's duties: spend the night in the barracks (the so-called system of officers); cleaning the territory - an officer is appointed senior (better a major, or even a higher one) and other examples of mistrust and humiliation of officers. And disciplinary officers have less and less legal authority. The quality of the conscripts is getting lower and lower, as all the smart and cunning recruits "turned away" by entering the university, fabricating the disease, simply not being in the military registration and enlistment office or other means. Those who have been called up dream of "rolling" until the end of the service. And what measures of influence are there for careless soldiers (except for invoking conscience and reason):
- a reprimand, a severe reprimand - so neither ration nor monetary allowance will decrease from this. They are already scanty;
-order for service out of turn - and without this punishment "in a day on the belt";
- to deny dismissals to the city - this is how dismissals to the city do not happen at all, because there is no city, or the senior military commander forbade all dismissals (collective punishment due to one slob).
So what should an officer do when a soldier who is unbelted and drunk is in the barracks. You can't turn over to the police, you can't send you to a sobering-up station. "Zubotychina" becomes in some cases the only measure of influence.
I have no doubt that there are decent officers, caring commanders-educators, and this despite their meager "salary" and domestic disorder. But how long can this decency be exploited, isn't it time to create normal conditions for service and disciplinary practice?
3. One gets the impression that only the top leadership of the army is concerned about the problem of hazing, while the rest - from sergeant to general - conceal violations. And who created this vicious practice of evaluating the activities of commanders if not the top management?If the commander of the regiment independently identifies the offenders, by legal means he will punish the perpetrators (up to criminal liability), he will also be "mutilated" for this, tortured by commissions and inspections. And the quality of educational work will be assessed by the number (cane system) of lawfully taken measures of influence - the more the commander has worked, the worse it is for him. So who compels to concealment if the system does not exist?
4. I am ashamed to look at the officers (including senior ones), who in quilted jackets, in unkempt "camouflages" walk around the city like homeless people and workers of the most not prestigious professions. Who brought them to this state? Yes, the guards of any more or less self-respecting organization look more attractive, deserve respect due to their appearance. People shy away from the defenders of the Motherland on the bus, no matter how dirty they get. Now military uniforms are available to everyone, and in the old days the right to wear military uniforms was granted not to all those who were transferred to the reserve, but only to honored officers, as stated in the order of dismissal - "with the right to wear military uniforms." The poorest strata of society now wear military uniforms, from which prestige and pride in the defenders of the fatherland come from.
