Democratic Control Print

Democratic control of armed forces is at the heart of the agenda of reformist governments and international organisations such as NATO. It is an issue much wider than corruption, and many reformers have taken the view that measures which strengthen democratic control will automatically reduce corruption. This may well be true, but the TI UK defence team is regularly in discussion with reformists in government and elsewhere who tell us that they still need a direct focus on addressing corruption as well as the direct institutional measures.

Areas for particular attention include:
  • parliamentary scrutiny and approval of defence budgets and procurement
  • parliamentary scrutiny and approval of defence policy
  • annual auditing of defence spending and its presentation to parliament
  • democratic control of military leadership and their appointments
Parliament and defence procurement

"Every country and society has unique security concerns, standards of democratic accountability of public policy and a particular political culture, all of which may make arms procurement accountability somewhat difficult to realise." Ravi Singh
Ravi Singh's paper on "Parliamentary oversight of arms procurement processes: limitations and opportunities" (2004) outlines generic approaches that could be used, with due modifications, for control and prevention of corruption in arms transfers. The paper primarily discusses executive legislative and statutory bodies to align corruption prevention goals and methods with democratic principles, such as: good governance; rule of law; checks and balances for harmonising security policy with broader societal priorities, public accountability for preventing waste fraud and abuse, transparency of decision making processes for accountability, and so on.

In the interests of holding the government's expenditures to account, Transparency International UK's defence against corruption project believes expenditure on defence procurement should be scrutinised by a Public Accounts Committee with full access to the bids, specifications and documents.

"Defence contracts should be made public because they use public money. If not, given the sensitivity of the area, then it should go through a parliamentary committee before the purchase is made. One, it is public money, two, money has to be accounted, and three, history has shown that big commissions do get extorted in this sector, and the integrity of the country is compromised"


- Edward Hosea, Director General of the Prevention of Corruption Bureau in Tanzania

See also DCAF Backgrounder on "Parliament's role in defence procurement".

Defence budgeting


Parliament has a responsibility to the public to ensure that the public's interests are taken into account in the defence budgeting process. In order to carry out its responsibilities, parliament should
  • inform the public of significant developments that impact on the defence budget
  • provide for transparency in governmental decision-making about defence resources
  • prevent misuse of public funds by the executive, the military or the defence industry (aided by transparency and the provision of information)
See The DCAF Backgrounder on "Parliament's role in defence budgeting"

"An unintended consequence of attempts to control ‘excessive’ military expenditure can be to push aspects of military spending off-budget. Off budget funding has become the principle means through which arms are procured, with its secrecy and shadowy nature creating ample opportunities for corruption".
See Sue Willet's typology of "off-budget military expenditures"

Defence policy
Transparency and accountability in the formulation of defence policy helps to inculcate a culture of transparency in the defence sector.