Defence accountability

THANK God for parliament where we are beginning to see some accountability of the defence sector. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) under the chairmanship of opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar has begun to raise questions about irregularities in the defence budget.

A sporadic flow of information regarding the performance of this sector was observed in the life of the previous parliament as well. The fact is that even the weakest parliament is able to access more information than when there is no political government in place.

For instance, had it not been for the questions raised in the National Assembly, we might not have come to know that there are still about 2,500 serving military personnel in government departments. This means that not all were pulled out as was being claimed during the drive by the current army chief to bring about professionalism in the armed forces.

Because of the constant debate on the civil-military divide in the country, the present parliament managed to bring relatively greater transparency to the defence budget and we now know more details than what was presented in terms of the one-line budgetary figure given in the past. Needless to say, the space for greater information was created due to the peculiar political turmoil in the country. In order to do some face-saving and improve the military’s image, the top brass had to give in to the need for greater transparency, expecting that this would create a friendly image.

Now we know the allocations for the three services, defence production and inter-services organisations. But it is still difficult to access how much is spent on essentials versus non-essentials or what exactly is the ‘teeth-to-tail’ ratio of military expenditure. These details should not be expected even in the foreseeable future for two reasons.

First, the government is operating with an under-capacitated, weak and militarised ministry of defence. Given the PPP government’s aversion to building institutions, it cannot impose greater restrictions or challenges of accountability and transparency on the armed forces.

Second, since even the Indian defence budget’s transparency is restricted to certain ballpark figures, the military will insist that it cannot disclose more because of the need for secrecy.

Contrary to the view that more should be disclosed, I would argue that we should be happy with the current state of disclosure provided parliament prepares itself to improve the exercise of accountability rather than focus on greater transparency. In fact, transparency can be improved through accountability.

The performance of the PAC should be emphasised through strengthening the committee’s secretariat.

This means bringing experts on board that could help the PAC assess the military’s financial performance. The committee has a permanent bureaucratic set-up that operates even if parliament is non-existent. The audit reports are only debated once the PAC is constituted.

This is one of the reasons for the delays in debating audit reports. For instance, the reports pertaining to years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997-98, 1998-99, 2001-04 and 2006-07 are still pending because of the earlier absence of the PAC. This also means that the current PAC has a huge backlog. Reportedly, the PAC has decided to deal with current reports and let sub-committees sort out the backlog. So, it is hoped that the new parliament will exercise a better sense of accountability vis-à-vis the armed forces.

Since the adoption of the new accounting and auditing methodology, which is owed to the assistance provided by the World Bank to revamp the financial accounting and auditing system, the auditor general’s department is in a position to shorten the time it takes to present audit reports.

Technically, the department can complete its audit cycle by September, which is within three months after the end of the financial year, and then present its report by March the following year. Hopefully, if the government is allowed to complete its duration, the PAC could finish its work uninterrupted.

But more importantly, the audit observations mostly pertain to what could be called tactical irregularities. For instance, there are cases in which sanctions are not received prior to when expenditure was incurred but ex post facto.

In the past, the chairmen and members of the PAC made observations outside parliament almost in the fashion of out-of-court settlements. So, the tendency has been that serious irregularities pertaining to the procurement of weaponry, an area rife with financial kickbacks, have not come to the surface. The concept of a performance audit, which we find in India’s case, does not apply to defence audits in Pakistan. It is noteworthy that the Bofors scandal in India which led to the destabilisation of Rajiv Gandhi’s government was disclosed by the comptroller and auditor general of India.

The PAC of Prime Minister Junejo’s parliament (1985-88) had recommended an independent organisational set-up for the audit of defence purchases that was established but later packed up. Only when the government truly begins to probe defence purchases will it be able to assess the extent of corruption and discover that the much-touted accountability mechanisms within the military actually do not function. A primary reason for this is the lack of a rational system of procurement in the military through which financial mismanagement can be checked.

It is also necessary for parliament to impose PAC decisions. For instance, the observations of the ad hoc PAC during the initial years of Musharraf had observed the mismanagement of military farms. It was observed that the military managers of the Okara farms were responsible for the pilferage of resources and not the system of contract that the army then tried to change resulting in a battle between farm labour and the army.

Only when parliament manages to create accountability mechanisms will we find that there is as much wastage of resources in the defence sector as anywhere else in government. So when people argue that the allocation for education must not be increased because the education ministry is far too inefficient and cannot spend its allocated resources, the counter question is: is there no evidence that the defence sector is inefficient?

Years of poor accountability and transparency have given the semblance of greater efficiency which is actually a myth. Money is spent and wasted without proper accountability. It is hoped that matters will begin to improve now.

DAWN.com