Category: Responsible Defence Governance

Harnessing the power of collaboration, mutual learning, and knowledge exchange across our global Transparency International (TI) movement of over 100 chapters, Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS) launched Defending Transparency: An advocate’s guide to counteracting defence corruption in August 2024. To bring this toolkit to life, we organised a series of Academy Day sessions to foster dialogue and offer hands-on training on how to effectively advocate for better anti-corruption standards in defence and security. Our International Programmes Officer, Yi Kang Choo, shares reflections on the most recent session held in Bangkok, Thailand.

On 30th November 2024, we brought together national experts from six TI Chapters across the Asia Pacific region: Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, South Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan, for a dynamic one-day session focused on strengthening defence governance and anti-corruption advocacy through shared learning and collaboration.

The day began with an overview of the defence governance landscapes in the region. Chapter representatives shared their national experiences, highlighting challenges such as procurement practices, blurred public-private relationships in defence sectors, and limited civilian and parliamentary oversight. These discussions underscored the complexity of combating corruption and the need for innovative, context-specific solutions. Participants also candidly shared their frustrations and identified common obstacles faced by civil society in championing transparency and accountability in the defence and security sector.

One of the highlights of the day was the discussion of successful advocacy campaigns and the use of our 2020 Government Defence Integrity (GDI) Index. TI Taiwan demonstrated how the GDI alongside the chapter’s advocacy catalysed the formation of a dedicated team within the Ministry of National Defense’s (MND) Ethics Office to address the corruption risks identified in the index. TI Taiwan and the MND also co-hosted the International Military Integrity Academic Forum in 2023, fostering constructive dialogue on enhancing defence sector transparency. Similarly, TI Malaysia showcased how the GDI findings sparked public interest and facilitated further engagement with civil society in the traditionally closed and secretive defence and security sector.

These success stories inspired lively discussions, providing valuable lessons and strategies adaptable to other national contexts. We also shared findings from our latest report, Unlocking Access: Balancing National Security and Transparency in Defence. The report discusses how blanket national security exemptions are often used to justify withholding critical information, while public interest tests designed to balance the benefits of disclosing against the potential harm remain mostly absent from the cases considered. The report also features detailed case studies from five countries around the world at varying stages of progress in advancing access to information in their defence sectors, including Malaysia.

Finally, an interactive workshop followed, which encouraged participants to brainstorm and collaborate on national and regional advocacy opportunities, using the tools provided in our Advocacy Toolkit. Ideas such as fostering cross-border cooperation, engaging private sector stakeholders, and leveraging international forums like ASEAN and the Shangri-La Dialogue were central to the discussions. We also discussed how international transparency standards such as the 2013 Tshwane Principles could offer practical guidelines for governments to balance transparency and access to information with legitimate national security concerns. The session also reinforced the importance of regional and international solidarity amongst civil society in driving systemic change.

Throughout the day, the recurring theme was the importance of building and nurturing trust and partnerships. Whether engaging with defence institutions, civil society, or private companies, sustained dialogue and collaboration were seen as essential for creating lasting change. By the end of the session, participants left with actionable ideas, strengthened networks, and renewed motivation to engage on the topic moving forward. They were also invited to join our Global Defence Network, fostering further collaboration with like-minded chapters, civil society organisations, and experts worldwide.

Alvin Nicola (Democratic and Participation Governance Manager, TI Indonesia): “Fortifying alliances in the Asian region is an undeniable priority for all of us, TI Chapters. I am honoured to have the opportunity to exchange perspectives and explore collaborative steps that will further strengthen the integrity and stability of the defence and security sectors across the region.”

Dr Nausheen Wasi (Board Member, TI Pakistan): “Though, it was a brief interaction with colleagues in Bangkok, yet I thoroughly enjoyed meeting them all. I kept on thinking how the same work ideology — commitment to bring positive change in society — connects us all, regardless of diversity we inherit.”

The Academy Day reinforced our shared commitment to fighting corruption and enhancing governance of defence and security sectors in the Asia Pacific region. The lessons learned and partnerships forged will continue to guide our efforts to promote transparency and accountability in the defence and security sector. We look forward to deepening our collaboration and shared learning with Chapters across the TI movement to advance our vision of a world free from corruption in defence and security.

Defending Transparency: An advocate’s guide to counteracting defence corruption is available to read here.

Further insights from Armenia, Guatemala, Malaysia, Niger, and Tunisia illustrate access to information challenges

December 10, 2024 – New research from Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS) underscores the need for better access to information in the defence sector to curb corruption, ensure accountability, and improve civic engagement.

Published today, Unlocking Access: Balancing National Security and Transparency in Defence shines a light on opaque defence sectors worldwide at a time of increased geopolitical tensions and global military spending reaching record highs of $2.4 trillion.

Read the report

The report highlights challenges and good practices of transparency in defence budgets, procurement and policy processes using detailed case studies from Armenia, Guatemala, Malaysia, Niger, and Tunisia. The countries are at varying stages of progress in advancing access to information in their defence sectors and face a range of challenges, including conflict-driven secrecy, democratic backsliding, and stalled reforms.

Our analysis reveals that while international frameworks provide guidelines for transparency, implementation remains weak. Blanket national security exemptions are often used to justify withholding critical information, while public interest tests designed to balance the benefits of disclosing against the potential harm are mostly absent.

This lack of transparency increases the risk of corruption, mismanagement of funds, and fuels public distrust of the very institutions tasked with protecting citizens.

Michael Ofori-Mensah, Head of Research at Transparency International Defence & Security, said:

“The defence sector remains one of the most secretive corners of government, making it a breeding ground for corruption. Striking a balance between national security and the public’s right to know is crucial to ensure accountability, but far too often governments tip the scales towards secrecy. It’s time for transparency to be the rule, not the exception.”

Case study insights

Armenia has kept high levels of defence spending because of its decades-long conflict with Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, which recently concluded with major losses for Armenia. Access to information was enshrined in a 2003 national freedom of information law but has been severely curtailed by the 2024 states secrets law, which prohibits the release of information related to most defence spending.

Guatemala has endured a growing corruption crisis for the past decade, as the presidency and the powerful Public Prosecutor’s office stifled anti-corruption efforts, forced anti-corruption officials into exile, and blocked potential reform candidates from elections. As the Secretariat for Access to Public Information is required to work with the Prosecutor’s Office on access to information enforcement, implementation of the law has faltered until now.

Malaysia saw a peaceful power transition in 2018, but governance reforms – including access to information – have stalled, with the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA) severely limiting access to information. The OSA functions as the de facto national framework for access to information and overrules any other legislation on information access. There is little knowledge about the defence budget or expenditures, and almost no publicly available information about acquisition planning.

Niger experienced a military coup in July 2023 that has led to increased violence, stark reductions in foreign assistance, and a severe curtailing of access to information and other democratic rights. Even prior to the coup, defence income and military spending were mainly non-transparent, as were defence purchases. But a new far-reaching law was passed in 2024 that excludes all defence matters from public procurement, public accounting, and taxes.

Tunisia has seen democratic backsliding since 2021 which reduced government transparency. Though a strong access to information law exists, defence-related information is often kept confidential. Still, Tunisia has a strong access to information law, with an effective independent oversight body that has helped to implement the law throughout the public sector.

The report offers specific recommendations for each of these five countries to improve access information which broadly fit into these categories:

1. Balancing tests: Legal frameworks should require officials to assess the public interest versus potential harm before withholding information.
2. Proactive disclosure: Governments should regularly and proactively publish defence budgets, procurement plans, and financial results to enhance accountability.
3. Independent oversight: Review bodies should be established to monitor and adjudicate disputes over information access.
4. Civil society engagement: Defence planning and policymaking should be open to civil society for broader input and oversight

Notes to editors:

The case studies in Unlocking Access were produced using an updated version of our Government Defence Integrity Index 2020 – the leading global assessment of the governance of and corruption risks in defence sectors. The data was supplemented by interviews with local experts, and the review of policy reports and media investigations.

French and Spanish versions of this press release are available.

Corruption undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of government institutions in all sectors, but it thrives in areas where large budgets intersect with high levels of secrecy and limited accountability, write Michael Ofori-Mensah, Denitsa  Zhelyazkova and Harvey Gavin. 

The defence and security sector features all these risk areas, making it particularly vulnerable. The combination of secrecy, limited oversight and, often, high levels of discretionary power in decision-making, creates an environment ripe for corruption. This vulnerability not only undermines the ability of governments to fulfil their primary duty to their citizens of keeping them safe, it also undermines their legitimacy.  

Transparency International – Defence & Security is working to address this issue. A key contribution is our recent involvement in NATO’s Building Integrity Institutional Enhancement Course. This program focuses on supporting national governments with capacity building in developing Integrity Action Plans aimed at strengthening the integrity of their defence institutions. Before drawing up these plans, defence officials must identify areas most at risk of corruption. This is where the recent enhancement aimed at improving accessibility and use of our Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI) becomes an invaluable diagnostic tool. 

The GDI is the world’s leading assessment of corruption risks in national defence institutions. As a corruption risk assessment tool, it examines the quality of institutional controls to manage the risk of corruption in nearly 90 countries around the world on both policymaking and public sector governance and covers five major risk areas: 

1. Financial: includes strength of safeguards around military asset disposals, whether a country allows military-owned businesses, and whether the full extent of military spending is publicly disclosed.   
2. Operational: includes corruption risk in a country’s military deployments overseas and the use of private security companies.   
3. Personnel: includes how resilient defence sector payroll, promotions and appointments are to corruption, and the strength of safeguards against corruption to avoid conscription or recruitment.  
4. Political: includes transparency over defence & security policy, openness in defence budgets, and strength of anti-corruption checks surrounding arms exports.  
5. Procurement: includes corruption risk around tenders and how contracts are awarded, the use of agents/brokers as middlemen in procurement, and assessment of how vulnerable a country is to corruption in offset contracts.   

Within these areas, the GDI identifies 29 specific corruption risks, assessed through 77 main questions and 212 underlying indicators. These indicators examine both legal frameworks and their implementation, as well as the allocation of resources and outcomes. 

It, therefore, provides defence institutions with a comprehensive assessment of corruption vulnerabilities and a platform to identify safeguards against corruption risks. Each indicator is scored on a scale from 0 to 100, with aggregated scores determining the strength of a country’s institutional practices and protocols to manage corruption risks in defence,: from A (low corruption risk/very robust institutional resilience to corruption) to F (high corruption risk/limited to no institutional resilience to corruption).

Our recent updates to the GDI website have significantly improved its functionality, allowing users to group countries by various categories such as region, income level, regime type, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) group and intergovernmental body affiliation. For example, policymakers seeking to understand problematic areas within the EU defence sector can now explore specific indicators of interest and export the data for detailed analysis.  

The enhancement also provides a functionality that enables comparisons across the 77 main questions of the GDI thus facilitating targeted assessments of particular risk areas and cross-country analysis. 

Data from the GDI, both quantitative and qualitative, can be downloaded in .csv format, compatible with numerous data processing tools like Excel, SPSS, and Access. This feature allows users to generate customised spreadsheets containing only the information pertinent to their needs. The qualitative data, derived from expert assessor interviews, provides critical insights that complement the quantitative scores, offering a nuanced understanding of corruption risks. 

(Note: these updates apply to the current 2020 iteration of the GDI. Our team is working on the 2025 GDI – you can find more information about it here) 

The ongoing challenges posed by corruption in the defence sector demand sustained and coordinated efforts from both national governments and the international community. Initiatives like NATO’s Building Integrity Institutional Enhancement Course, supported by tools like the GDI, represent significant strides toward fostering good governance in defence institutions. But maintaining high standards of defence governance remains an ongoing challenge that requires vigilance and commitment. 

Reforms are urgently needed to address the institutional gaps identified by the GDI. Integrity Action Plans, informed by comprehensive corruption risk assessments, are essential for guiding these changes. By prioritising transparency, accountability and resilience, countries can strengthen their defence institutions, reduce corruption and improve peace and security.

As members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) gather this week in Laos for the 44th and 45th ASEAN Summits, this blog by Yi Kang Choo, our International Programmes Officer, explores the concerning absence of a strong focus on corruption risks – particularly in the region’s defence and security sectors.

Given the steady rise in military spending in the region, the ongoing civil war in Myanmar, and heightened tensions over territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea involving ASEAN nations, a discussion about how to root out corruption, and increase resilience to it, in these sectors seems overdue. 

Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS), alongside national TI Chapters in Indonesia (TI-ID) and Malaysia (TI-M) urge ASEAN states to recognise the pressing threat that corruption in the defence sector poses to regional peace and security. As Malaysia prepares to take on the role of ASEAN Chair in 2025, Transparency International Malaysia specifically highlights the crucial need for Malaysia especially to champion collective anti-corruption initiatives, particularly within defence and security sectors across the region. Malaysia needs to use its leadership by demonstrating that it is executing its national anti-corruption strategies with greater transparency and how such initiatives will help the ASEAN region as a whole.

Recent data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) highlights that global military expenditure reached a record high of $2.443 trillion in 2023, with ASEAN member states seeing an average rise of 2.34% since 2022. As our research shows, increased defence spending without appropriate oversight often correlates with rising corruption risks. In systems already susceptible to corruption, an influx of funds is most likely to benefit corrupt actors, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that prioritises private gains over peace and security outcomes. 

Our Government Defence Integrity (GDI) Index shows nearly half of all ASEAN member states face high to critical corruption risks in their defence sectors. This includes Malaysia, the incoming ASEAN Chair in 2025. Corruption can severely undermine the reliability and quality of military infrastructure and equipment, divert critical public resources, and compromise the safety and operational effectiveness of armed forces during potentially critical situations. 

Additionally, effective civilian oversight of defence institutions remains limited across the region, especially given the restrictive civic spaces in all ten ASEAN countries, which have been categorised as ‘closed’, ‘repressed’, or ‘obstructed’ according to 2023 CIVICUS Monitor rating. 

To address these urgent challenges, TI-DS calls on ASEAN member states to: 

• Recognise and respond to corruption as a threat to peace and security – Corruption exacerbates inequalities within and between nations, fuelling conflicts and geopolitical tensions. ASEAN must prioritise strengthening governance systems, embedding corruption safeguards, and building integrity within its armed forces into defence and security decision-making.  

• Create mechanisms for meaningful civil society engagement and effective parliamentary and civilian oversight in defence and security sectors – To ensure these sectors operate under effective scrutiny and accountability, civil society must be empowered to fulfil its role as critical observer in an independent, protected and effective manner. This includes the protection of civic space and ensuring public access to information, also in defence and security, with restrictions on the grounds of national security only applied on well-justified, exceptional circumstances. Additionally, whistleblowers and investigative journalists must be protected from retaliation, particularly when transparency serves the public interest over secrecy. 

• Implement robust anti-corruption controls for arms transfers – Governments must conduct thorough corruption risk assessments for arms deals and ensure recipient countries uphold strong anti-corruption standards. Measures must be taken to prevent arms from being diverted and misused. (Read our briefing paper to learn more about how arms trade loopholes enabled crimes against humanity in Myanmar.) 

Against the backdrop of heightened security risks, we call for ASEAN governments to prevent further risk for conflict and tensions through taking anti-corruption and its risks to defence, peace and security seriously, as well as to fully acknowledge the role of civil society in embarking on this vital endeavour for the region. 

Notes to editors:  

ASEAN Member States including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Myanmar feature in Transparency International Defence & Security’s 2020 Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI).  

The Index scores and ranks countries based on the strength of their safeguards against defence and security corruption.   

Malaysia and Indonesia appear in band ‘D’, indicating a ‘high’ risk of corruption, whereas Thailand appear in band ‘E’, indicating a ‘very high’ risk of corruption, and Myanmar in band ‘F’, indicating a ‘critical’ risk.

Access to information is a cornerstone of healthy, accountable and transparent societies and essential for democracy.   

By improving the public’s ability to obtain and use government-held information, citizens are empowered to participate fully in democratic processes, make informed decisions, and hold their leaders accountable.  

Access to information is vital in all public sectors, but particularly so in defence and security where high levels of secrecy combined with substantial public budgets greatly increase the risk of corruption. Transparency and access to information in this sector provides a crucial bulwark against the misuse of funds, ensures accountability, and maintains public trust.  

Ahead of Access to Information Day 2024, we’re excited to share details of our upcoming report which provides a comprehensive overview of the state of defence transparency and access to information worldwide.  

Our report aims to strengthen accountability by enhancing access to defence information, in line with our broader goal to ensure informed and active citizens drive integrity in defence and security.  

Utilising our Government Defence Integrity (GDI) 2020 database, which assesses institutional integrity and corruption risks, the report offers a detailed assessment of global defence transparency and access to information, with a focus on defence finances including budgeting information and spending practices. This is particularly urgent in an era of increasing military spending. The latest defence spending data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows world military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2.443 trillion in 2023. This represents an increase of 6.8 per cent in real terms from 2022, which is the steepest year-on-year increase since 2009.   

Additionally, the report also includes a review of global standards for transparency that apply to the defence sector. This is coupled with insightful case studies from Niger, Tunisia, Malaysia, Armenia and Guatemala and a review of good practices. The report concludes with recommendations to enhance access to information in particular contexts.  

We look forward to sharing the full report and the accompanying case studies shortly. Updates on the launch date will be provided via our X/Twitter and LinkedIn accounts.

Ara Marcen Naval examines how Venezuela’s military entrenchment in government and the economy undermines democracy and fuels corruption, and highlights the urgent need for transparency and civilian oversight.

Venezuela’s recent turmoil, marked by allegations of electoral fraud and widespread protests, reflects deeper systemic issues affecting the nation. These issues include evidence of rampant corruption, an overly militarised government, and the erosion of democratic principles.  

The Venezuelan government’s adoption of a ‘civic-military’ model, has led to the military’s deep entrenchment in both political and economic spheres. This strategy not only ensures military loyalty through ideological indoctrination but also through substantial economic privileges. Consequently, the military’s influence extends far beyond traditional defence roles. 

According to a 2021 report by Transparencia Venezuela, the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) hold significant positions in key sectors. Military personnel are present in the boards of at least 103 public companies and 11 out of 34 government ministries. Furthermore, 24 companies under the Ministry of Defence, mostly unrelated to military functions, highlight the extensive military footprint in non-defence areas. 

There are risks associated with the military’s involvement in Venezuela’s economy. The military controls crucial sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture and food, which allows them to manipulate essential resources. This control is not only undemocratic but also breeds corruption and inefficiency. 

Transparencia Venezuela reported an increase in the number of military personnel on public company boards from 2020 to 2021. However, this increased presence has not led to improved transparency or accountability. Many military-run enterprises operate with little public oversight, raising serious concerns about corruption and mismanagement. According to the Government Integrity Index, Venezuela faces critical corruption risks across its defence sector. Civilian democratic control of the military is extremely weak, and defence institutions are largely unaccountable to the public. Corruption is endemic throughout the sector. External scrutiny and institutional transparency are virtually non-existent, particularly concerning arms acquisitions and financial management. This lack of oversight exacerbates corruption and mismanagement issues, further undermining democratic governance and public trust. 

The political power wielded by the military in Venezuela is equally concerning. Numerous former military officials occupy significant political roles, including governorships and mayoralties. The 2021 regional elections saw several ex-military figures elected, underscoring the military’s entrenched political influence. 

Nicolás Maduro, the political successor of Chávez, has continued and deepened the militarisation of the government. During his tenure, a significant number of high-ranking government positions have been occupied by active or retired military officers, further consolidating military power within the state apparatus. The FANB has expanded its role in the economy and the management of the country’s strategic resources. In essence, the Venezuelan Armed Forces are closely tied to Chávez, Maduro, and their political project. This intertwining of military and political power creates a robust support system for the ruling regime. By placing military loyalists in key civilian roles, the regime secures a power base that is resistant to opposition and external pressures. 

The Venezuelan government leverages its control over the armed forces to maintain ‘social peace’, which often means suppressing dissent and protests through force. The recent electoral fraud allegations have sparked significant public outcry, met with harsh responses from the government, calling the demonstrations ‘terrorists acts’ and sending the security forces to clash with upset citizens. This repression stifles democratic expression and perpetuates a cycle of fear and control. 

The militarisation and corruption within the Venezuelan government have profound implications for democracy. The dominance of military power in political and economic spheres erodes democratic institutions and processes. Electoral fraud allegations are symptomatic of a broader decline in democratic norms, where elections are manipulated to maintain the status quo rather than reflect the will of the people. 

While Venezuela finds its way out the current situation, hopefully moving towards democratic principles, there will need to find pathways to address these deep-rooted issues. First, enhancing transparency and accountability within military-run enterprises is crucial. Implementing robust anti-corruption measures and ensuring independent audits of military expenditures can help restore public trust. 

Moreover, reducing the military’s role in civilian government functions is essential to strengthening democratic institutions. Encouraging civilian oversight of the military and promoting democratic norms can gradually diminish the military’s political influence. To get out of the current crisis, there is a need to improve the governance of the defence sector, and the military has a key role in the democratisation and accountability process.

July 30, 2024 – Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS) expresses deep concern that the potential ‘disintegration’ of state cooperation in West Africa could exacerbate conflict in the already unstable region. 

Following a summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) earlier this month, the bloc cautioned the formation of a breakway union, run by the military juntas in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, would worsen insecurity and disrupt the work of a long-proposed regional force. 

Research by TI-DS  previously found that Mali, Niger, Ghana and Nigeria all face a very high risk of corruption in their defence and security sectors, while Burkina Faso is at a critical risk. Corruption in these sectors increases the risk of conflict and weakens the ability to manage and resolve unrest, compromising regional stability. 

Sara Bandali, Director of International Engagement at Transparency International UK, said:  

“We express deep concern over the recent warning from ECOWAS about the potential damage to the region’s security following the formation of a breakaway union by the military rulers of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. In a region already marred by conflict and insecurity – much of which has been caused or exacerbated by corruption in the defence and security sectors – this move threatens to make the region and its people less safe.  

“Cooperation, not competition, are key to addressing the corruption and insecurity issues the region faces. It’s clear that corruption in the defence and security sectors makes conflict more likely by fuelling the flames of grievance and unrest, while simultaneously making it harder to manage conflicts after they arise by weakening the effectiveness of military response. 

“We urge regional leaders to prioritise unity and collective action for a secure future free from corruption and the conflict that both stems from, and is fuelled by it. We stand ready to support governments and civil society in the region in this vital endeavor.” 

Notes to editors: 

Mali, Niger, Ghana and Nigeria and Burkina Faso feature in Transparency International Defence & Security’s 2020 Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI). 

The Index scores and ranks countries based on the strength of their safeguards against defence and security corruption.  

Mali, Niger, Ghana and Nigeria all appear in band ‘E’, indicating a ‘very high’ risk of corruption. Burkina Faso is in band ‘F’, indicating a ‘critical’ risk.

Michael Ofori-Mensah, Head of Research at Transparency International Defence & Security, said:  

“On Africa Day 2024, we acknowledge the significance of this celebration and the tremendous potential for progress across the continent.  

“To ensure a bright future for Africa’s 1.2 billion people, it is crucial to address the pervasive issue of corruption within the defence and security sectors.  

“Our research has shown how opaque procurement processes, mismanagement of defence budgets and weak oversight have resulted in the waste of funds, the erosion of public trust and the undermining of national security.  

“Nigeria’s counter-insurgency efforts against Boko Haram have been severely hampered by corruption, while South Africa’s defence procurement scandals vividly highlight the broader challenges faced by the continent.  

“It is important to also highlight the positive developments, including increased transparency initiatives and strengthened anti-corruption efforts in various African countries and through regional cooperation. 

“Corruption in the defence sector has far-reaching consequences for governance and democracy, diverting resources away from essential services and fueling conflict and instability. 

“By addressing defence sector corruption, African states can safeguard national security, promote economic development, and strengthen democratic institutions. Transparency International Defence & Security stands ready to support African governments and civil society in this crucial endeavor.” 

Transparency International Defence & Security calls upon African governments and African regional institutions to:  

1. Enhance transparency and accountability: Implement robust transparency measures in defence procurement, budgeting, and decision-making processes. Establish independent oversight bodies and strengthen parliamentary oversight over defence activities. 

1. Strengthen anti-corruption frameworks: Enact and enforce comprehensive anti-corruption laws, including whistleblower protection mechanisms, and ensure the independence and adequate resourcing of anti-corruption agencies. 

1. Foster regional cooperation: Strengthen regional cooperation and information sharing on defence sector corruption, leveraging existing frameworks like the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) initiatives. 

1. Promote civic engagement: Encourage civil society organisations and the media to actively monitor and report on defence sector activities, fostering public scrutiny and accountability. 

1. Prioritise good governance: Uphold democratic principles, the rule of law, and good governance practices within defence institutions, as these are essential for preventing corruption and maintaining political stability. 

As world military spending hits all-time high, findings from Transparency International highlight urgent need for transparency and accountability 

April 24, 2024 – Rising military expenditure is outpacing countries’ safeguards against corruption and threatening national and global security, new research from Transparency International finds.

Trojan Horse Tactics explores the nexus between the risk of corruption in the defence sector and rapid militarisation fuelled by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, conflicts in the Middle East and the Sahel, and heightened tensions in the Asia-Pacific. 

Read the report  

This comprehensive paper by Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS) examines the relationship between military expenditure and corruption through the lens of defence governance. 

Analysis using the TI-DS Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI), which assesses nearly 90 countries on the strength of their corruption safeguards, combined with military spending data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reveals a clear trend. Countries that spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP tend to score lower in the GDI, indicating a higher vulnerability to corruption. 

Additionally, the issue is becoming more serious. Data released by SIPRI this week shows world military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2.443 trillion in 2023. This represents an increase of 6.8 per cent in real terms from 2022, which is the steepest year-on-year increase since 2009. 

Corruption in the defence & security sector, including bribery, conflicts of interest, embezzlement, nepotism and sextortion severely undermines national security. These practices divert critical resources and erode public trust, weakening a country’s defence capabilities and stability. 

Despite this, ‘defence exceptionalism’ – the idea that because of national security considerations the sector should be exempt from transparency norms – means that many countries neglect or completely ignore good governance standards such as parliamentary and civil oversight, accountability, and transparency rules. 

Sara Bandali, Director of International Engagement at Transparency International UK, said:  

“In an era marked by increasing militarisation, it’s crucial that we confront the deep-seated vulnerabilities to corruption in the defence & security sector.  

“Our findings clearly indicate that rising military spending is linked with heightened corruption risks, which in turn threaten national and global security. Our previous research has shown how many defence institutions in countries around the world are ill-equipped to manage the higher corruption risks militarisation brings. If militarisation is to achieve the aim of upholding national and human security, these are issues which can no longer be overlooked. 

“The evidence-based Government Defence Integrity Index not only identifies key areas of concern but also sets global benchmarks for accountability and transparency. We urge all countries to move towards these standards in response to growing insecurity.” 

TI-DS calls on all countries to make transparency and accountability around defence spending a core aspect of the response to increased global insecurity by:  

1. Improving transparency and appropriate oversight of defence budgets to ensure that the public has as comprehensive a picture as possible of spending plans. 
2. Introducing controls to reduce risks of funds being lost to corruption as budgets are spent. 
3. Integrating anti-corruption measures into arms exports controls. This is to prevent exporting countries providing arms to countries which cannot demonstrate their will and capacity to manage corruption risks. 

By Patrick Kwasi Brobbey (Research Project Manager), Léa Clamadieu and Irasema Guzman Orozco (Research Project Officers) 

Corruption in defence and security heightens conflict risks, wastes public resources, and exacerbates human insecurity. It is crucial to recognise the gravity of corruption in the defence and security sector and develop institutional safeguards against it. Against this backdrop, Transparency International – Defence & Security (TI-DS) is launching the 2025 Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI) – the premier global measure of institutional resilience to corruption in the defence and security sector. This blog outlines what the GDI entails, its relevance, how it is produced, and essential information about the launch.   

What is the GDI? 

The GDI analyses institutional and informal controls to manage the risk of corruption in public defence and security establishments. The index focuses on five broad risk areas of defence: policymaking, finances, personnel management, operations, and procurement. To provide a broad and comprehensive reflection of these risk areas, the GDI assesses both legal frameworks and their implementation, as well as resources and outcomes. 

Because of its focus, the index provides a framework of good practice that promotes accountable, transparent, and responsible governance in national defence establishments. The GDI is a critical tool in driving global defence reform and improving defence governance.  

Previously dubbed the Government Defence Anti-corruption Index, the GDI was first released in 2013. Updated results were published in 2015, before the index went a major overhaul in 2020.  The project now runs in a five-year cycle, so the new iteration will be published in 2025.  

Gender: A New Dimension of the GDI 

For the first time, the GDI will incorporate a gender approach. The 2024-2026 TI-DS Strategy acknowledges that corruption in the defence sector involves gendered power dynamics that produce different impacts, perceptions, risks, forms of corruption, and experiences for diverse groups of women, men, girls, boys, and sexual and gender minorities. In alignment with the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda, many defence and security institutions now recognise gender. Nevertheless, their efforts mainly focus on achieving gender balance, mainstreaming, and representation. There is a lack of visibility on gendered corruption risks in the defence and security policy agenda, as anti-corruption measures and gender concerns are often addressed separately. 

Consistent with our commitment to addressing this, the 2025 GDI adopts a gender perspective to assess the gender dimensions of corruption risks in this sector. For this iteration, gender indicators have been developed and will be piloted. The gendered corruption risk indicators cover four cross-cutting themes: legal and normative commitments, gender balance strategies, gender mainstreaming strategies, and prevention and response to gender-based violence.  

Integrating gender into corruption risk assessments like the GDI can help produce gendered anti-corruption interventions that recalibrate uneven power relations affecting people of diverse genders and minority groups. Additionally, it will help to identify evidence-based best practices in the gender, anti-corruption, and security space. 

Why is the GDI important? 

The GDI offers an evidence-based approach which emphasises that better institutional controls reduce the risk of corruption. It constitutes a comprehensive assessment of integrity matters in the defence sector and plays a crucial role in driving global defence reform, thereby improving defence governance. 

The relevance of the index is enshrined in the rationale for creating it. The GDI recognises that:  

• Corruption within the defence and security sector impede states’ ability to defend themselves and provide the needed security for their citizens. For instance, in Iraq in 2014, 50,000 ‘ghost soldiers’ were found in the budget – soldiers that existed only on paper and whose salaries were stolen by senior or high-ranking officers. The Iraqi forces were left depleted, unprepared to face real threats and unable to protect citizens and provide national security.
• The secrecy of the defence sector contributes to the wastage of resources and the weakening of public institutions, facilitating the personalisation/privatisation of public resources for private gains via defence establishments. According to the 2020 GDI, 37% of states in the index had limited to no transparency on procurements.
• Efficacious public institutions and informal mechanisms are central in preventing the wastage of state funds, the misappropriation of power, and the development of graft in the defence and security sector. In 2023, it was revealed that the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence was planning to overpay suppliers for food intended for troops. This led to official investigations and ultimately saw the auditions in the Ukrainian parliament pass legislation that enhances transparency in defence procurement.

These examples underscore the importance and timeliness of the GDI in rooting out corruption in national defence and security sectors. 

How is the GDI created? 

The GDI consists of questions broken down into indicators spanning the five corruption risks. These serve as the basis of data collection in countries carefully selected using the TI-DS selection criteria, which predominantly centre on the susceptibility of a country’s defence institutions to corruption. These countries will be drawn from the following TI regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific and South Asia, and Western Europe and North America.  

TI-DS uses a rigorous methodology consisting of an independent Country Assessor conducting research and providing an original, context-specific data that is accurate and verifiable. The data are then first extensively reviewed by a TI-DS team of topical and methodology experts before being sent to external reviewers (specifically, peer reviewers and relevant TI national chapters and governments) for additional quality checks. As part of its commitment to transparency, TI-DS has published the GDI Methods Paper that outlines the methodological and analytical considerations and choices . 

Overview of the Launch 

The 2025 GDI research project, which will be conducted in six waves representing the TI regions, began on Tuesday 26 March 2023. A webinar was organised for TI national chapters whose countries are in the first wave. This information session ensured mutual learning between TI-DS and the chapters. Other webinars will be organised later for chapters whose countries are in the subsequent waves. 

TI-DS has secured ample funding for the sub-Saharan African wave of the 2025 GDI. However, as the GDI is of utmost importance and requires timely execution, we are working towards securing additional funding to cover the administrative and operational costs of the remaining five waves. TI-DS invites the stakeholders to get in touch via gdi@transparency.org to help support the remaining waves. Thank you. 

March 28, 2024 – Transparency International – Defence & Security (TI-DS) is excited to announce the start of work on the next iteration of the Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI), the leading global benchmark of corruption risks in the defence and security sector.  

The GDI 2025 is TI-DS’s flagship research product and follows on from the GDI 2020. This latest iteration includes expert assessments of around 90 countries as well as the introduction of a gender perspective, recognising the nuanced impacts of corruption across different gender and underrepresented groups. 

The GDI provides a framework of good practice that promotes accountable, transparent, and responsible governance in the defence & security sector. It is a useful tool for civil society to collaborate with Ministries of Defence, the armed forces, and with oversight institutions, to build their capacity in advocating for transparency and integrity. 

Countries are evaluated by independent assessors who assess the strength of anti-corruption safeguards and institutional resilience to corruption in five key areas: 

1. Financial: includes strength of safeguards around military asset disposals, whether a country allows military-owned businesses, and whether the full extent of military spending is publicly disclosed.  
2. Operational: includes corruption risk in a country’s military deployments overseas and the use of private security companies.  
3. Personnel: includes how resilient defence sector payroll, promotions and appointments are to corruption, and the strength of safeguards against corruption to avoid conscription or recruitment. 
4. Political: includes transparency over defence & security policy, openness in defence budgets, and strength of anti-corruption checks surrounding arms exports. 
5. Procurement: includes corruption risk around tenders and how contracts are awarded, the use of agents/brokers as middlemen in procurement, and assessment of how vulnerable a country is to corruption in offset contracts.  

These independent assessments go through multiple layers of expert review before each country is assigned an overall score and rank. This makes the GDI extremely rigorous in its methodology.  

The amount of work required to produce the GDI means the new country results will be released in six waves: 

• Sub-Saharan Africa 
• Middle East and North Africa 
• Central and Eastern Europe 
• Latin America 
• Asia Pacific and South Asia 
• Western Europe and North America 

The first wave is provisionally due to be published in early 2025.  

Notes: 

The GDI was previously known as the Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index (GI), with results published in 2013 and 2015. The Index underwent a major update for the 2020 version, including changes to the methodology and scoring underpinning the project. The 2025 results can be compared with those from 2020 to get a picture of global trends in defence governance, and which countries are improving. 

The GDI is a corruption risk assessment of the defence and security sector within a country, which assesses the quality of mechanisms used to manage corruption risk –and evaluating the factors that are understood to facilitate corruption. 

It is not a measurement of corruption and does not measure the amount of funds that are lost to corruption, identify corrupt actors, or estimate the perceptions of corruption in the defence & security sectors by the public. 

TI-DS has secured funding for the sub-Saharan African wave and is working towards securing additional support to cover the costs of producing the remaining five waves. We invite all stakeholders, including public agencies, multilateral organisations and INGOs, to get in touch via gdi@transparency.org to help support the remaining waves.