Corruption in the defence sector creates a more dangerous, less trustworthy security environment. This paper, published by Transparency International, examines the issue of corruption in defence establishments and recommends ways in which key defence players and civil society could become drivers for reform. Governments, defence companies and the public, now more aware of the financial, social and institutional costs of corruption, are expressing increasing interest in defence sector reform.
Corruption is a waste of resources. It reduces the effectiveness of military and forces and damages public trust in the military. In development, it hampers the ability of security sector reform to establish credible security institutions.
The three broad sources of defence corruption are:
- Defence officials who engage in bribery and inappropriate business practices;
- Defence ministry and military officials who engage in procurement profiteering and self-serving use of budgets and resources; and
- Political representatives who allow off-budget defence spending and misuse political and judicial power.
A number of factors contribute to the opportunity for corrupt officials to convert public money into private gain. Complex defence contracts make it difficult to apply accountability to the procurement process. Procurement contract agents, often retired military personnel, tend to operate in secret. Governments bid out a preponderance of contracts to a handful of suppliers.
The following key players could be drivers of corruption reform:
- Broad public trust in military discipline positions military leaders as potential reform leaders; national defence ministries occupy a central institutional position from which to promote reform.
- Defence companies are increasingly aware of the damage corruption can do to their reputations.
- Arms exporting governments are showing new determination to take defence companies to court on corruption charges.
- International development banks and defence bodies are in a position to demand high business standards and defence budget transparency.
- Defence academies, universities and training agencies can promote integrity in capacity development programmes for officers and defence ministry officials.
- Civil society has the potential to advocate anti-corruption efforts in defence establishments and parliament and facilitate public involvement in reform processes.
The following are recommended reform guidelines for dealing with defence sector corruption:
- Defence ministries/armed forces: Conduct thorough diagnosis of corruption problems. Take anti-corruption efforts even if other players are reluctant; engage civil society.
- Defence companies: Collaborate with other defence companies to raise anti-corruption standards in tendering; implement strong compliance programmes.
- Arms exporting governments: Demand anti-corruption practices from national defence companies and support international efforts to raise business standards.
- Multilateral development banks: Require anti-corruption diagnostics and measures to assess defence establishments. Build corruption reduction capacity in security sectors.
- Civil society: Engage with the defence establishment, implement public involvement in reform and act as independent reform monitors.
