Civil-Military Relations and Democratic Control of the Security Sector

Assuring integrity
Control during Budget Preparation
Military budgeting is based on a rigorous and reliable forecasting of the budget/fiscal constraints
in a comprehensive and consistent quantitative macroeconomic framework. All underlying assumptions
for budget planning, i.e., major fiscal risks, uncertain costs, specific expenditure
commitments, etc., are clearly documented and properly accounted for. Furthermore, major
underlying assumptions such as macroeconomic forecasts, fiscal forecasts, etc. are assessed
by independent experts.
All defense programs are assessed using a comprehensive and consistent set of cost factors
that are clearly related to the findings of an independent national statistics agency. Integrity
checks, as well as programming and budgeting, are systematically supported by an information
system with tools for automated analysis and decision support. The accounting basis is clearly
indicated, with full statement indicating any changes in practices as well as current accounting
policy. Alternative programs and budgets, corresponding to different assumptions, are clearly
identified and documented. There is a clear written procedure to transition from one alternative
to another, and transition points are also clearly documented. History of both plans and implementation
results and assessments is readily available.
Chapter 23
Parliament and Civil Society during Budget Preparation and
Approval
Parliamentarian and societal control over the budgeting cycle often meets a long-established
culture of supremacy of the executive in the security sector. 1 Nonetheless, the “power of the
purse” can and should be exercised to ensure accountability in the use of the public resources
for security and defense.
The most important role of Parliament is in setting proper legislative framework that guarantees—to
the extent feasible within the particular constitutional framework—implementation of
all principles, listed in the previous chapter, adding as well legislation for a comprehensive audit
and review process. Furthermore, parliamentarian and societal oversight of the security sector
through the budget should be solidly rooted in the political culture of the country.
Among all requirements, critically important are (1) the possibility of the Parliament and interested
non-governmental organizations to assess the product the security sector will provide
given certain budget allocations and (2) the availability of sufficient information to make such
assessments during budget preparation and approval, overseeing the execution of the budget
and reviewing budget accounts.
Budgeting for results
Technically, more difficult is to assess what kind of ‘product’ security sector organizations plan
to provide with the budget they request and how that product relates to declared security and
1 Hans Born, ed., Parliamentarian Oversight of the Security Sector, p. 129.
93