Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q42.

Are personnel promoted through an objective, meritocratic process? Such a process would include promotion boards outside of the command chain, strong formal appraisal processes, and independent oversight.

42a. Formal process

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

42b. Exceptions

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

42c. Comprehensiveness

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

42d. Frequency

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

The promotion of military personnel is regulated by laws and regulations that provide for promotion criteria for each rank, including non commissioned officers, the establishment and functioning of the promotion boards, as well as for procedures on suspension and retirement [1]. Additional provisions are laid down in the law on the status of the military officer [2]. According to the legislation, the minister of Defence has adopted regulations and instructions on the career boards, the promotion quotas, on the appraisal of the performance [3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
Independent scrutiny is not applied, as there are no independent observers in the promotion boards [1, 4, 5].

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable. No information is made public on the promotion and appointment for the military except for a few of the high ranking military and services such as the Military Police, the DISA [1, 2, 3, 4]. Besides the military personnel, there are two categories of civilian employees within the MoD and the armed forces. One category is employed in accordance with the Law on Civil Servants and another employed in accordance with the Labour Code [5, 6]. The scope of the civil servant’s law includes the civilian personnel employed in the MoD central office, while the Labour Code applies to personnel employed in the various services and branches of the armed forces [7]. Information on civilian personnel appointed in accordance with the Law on Civil Service is provided by the Department of Public Administration while the MoD publishes the vacancies for the other categories of civilian personnel [8, 9].

No information is made public on the promotion and appointment for the military except for a few of the high ranking military and services such as the Military Police, the DISA [1, 2, 3, 4]. Besides the military personnel, there are two categories of civilian employees within the MoD and the armed forces. One category is employed in accordance with the Law on Civil Servants and another employed in accordance with the Labour Code [5, 6]. The scope of the civil servant’s law includes the civilian personnel employed in the MoD central office, while the Labour Code applies to personnel employed in the various services and branches of the armed forces [7]. Information on civilian personnel appointed in accordance with the Law on Civil Service is provided by the Department of Public Administration while the MoD publishes the vacancies for the other categories of civilian personnel [8, 9].

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable. No information is made public on the promotion and appointments in the military, except for a few of the high ranking military and services such as the Military Police and the Defence Intelligence and Security Agency (DISA) [1, 2, 3, 4].
Information about military positions that is published is very limited, only several posts in key leadership positions in the armed forces are published. Those include the chief of general staff, service chiefs, the military representative to NATO, the support command commander, TRADOC commander, and the DISA director. Often the information is provided publically on the day the officials are assigned their command [5].

Some regulations on the formal process of promotions within the Algerian armed forces could be found; however, there are robust indications that they are commonly undermined.

The General Statute of Military Personnel of 2006 provides some information on the promotion process. In Title II, Chapter I, the general hierarchical structure of the armed force is outlined, which includes a table in Art. 20 that lists the different grades and their respective age limits as well as the limit with regards to the overall length of service. For example, the age limit for a second lieutenant is 30 years old, and the time limit for the length of service is 8 years. The age limit for a colonel is 53 years old, while the length of service is 32 years. Art. 20 also sets forth the age limit and the length of service for female officers, which differ from male officers. In Chapter IV, further information on the promotion process is given. According to Art. 62, members of the armed forces are regularly assessed by their superiors to determine their professional potential. The assessment includes reviews of their: personality, level of competence, conduct, physical aptitude, and performance results from their employment. These elements constitute the criteria determining a soldier’s potential career in terms of promotions, employment, and training. There is no evidence that there is a system of independent scrutiny outside of the chain of command. According to Art. 66, the promotions within the military hierarchy, take place continuously from one rank to the next higher rank (1).

There are strong signs that the promotion process is dominated by nepotism, cronyism and clientelism within the PNA; see the last country assessment (2). As has been outlined in previous questions, the military, along with the intelligence service and the government has developed a system that promotes corruption and nepotism from which they profit (3). The current Vice Defence Minister Gaïd Salah is a case in point that demonstrates that the formal promotion procedures are not necessarily followed. He became the General of the Army Corps (i.e. Chief-of-Staff) in 2006, at the age of 66, although the formal age limit is 64. His promotion also did not comply with his length of service. He was recruited into the armed forces in 1957, which means that he had served in the armed forces for 49 years in 2006. The length of service for a general of the army corps according to the table provided under order No. 06-02 (2006) is 42 years (1), (4).

There is some information on regulations that limit the possible circumstances of promotions and also place specific requirements on further progression. However, given the high likelihood of cronyism and nepotism within the rank-and-file of the military, it is unclear to what extent they are applied in practice.

Art. 65 of Order No. 06-02 (2006) says that promotions can take place at discretion, for example for special merit to reward an act of brilliance, a feat of arms, or an act of bravery. Soldiers can also be rewarded posthumously, in recognition of their sacrifice. Moreover, Art. 68 states that no one may be promoted to a grade if he does not meet the conditions of the minimum length of service as outlined in 42A (1). Furthermore, according to Art. 21, no one may serve beyond the age limit of his rank in peacetime. However, this article also says that an age exemption may be granted by the President of the Republic to generals and superiors holding high positions in the military hierarchy (2). This regulation can open doors for favouritism.

No information could be found on whether postings and promotions are published. No information could be found on the website (1) or in the armed forces magazine (2). Postings on promotions might be published internally; however, the General Statute of Military Personnel of 2006 does not contain a rule that promotions have to be made public. The only article that references this issue is Art. 15, stipulating that appointments and promotions to the ranks of officers, and non-commissioned officers shall be made within the limit of the number of open posts (3). However, it does not say that these open posts have to be advertised.

This sub-indicator has been scored Not Applicable because no information could be found on whether postings and promotions are published. No information could be found on the website (1) or in the armed forces magazine (2). Postings on promotions might be published internally; however, the General Statute of Military Personnel of 2006 does not contain a rule that promotions have to be made public. The only article that references this issue is Art. 15, stipulating that appointments and promotions to the ranks of officers, and non-commissioned officers shall be made within the limit of the number of open posts (3). However, it does not say that these open posts have to be advertised.

In July 2018, the parliament eventually passed the Law on Military Careers in the Angolan Armed Forces (1). The comprehensive new law establishes rules and procedures for military careers in the Angolan Armed Forces and the auxiliary services of the president, in the sectors of defence, intelligence and military security, as well as military justice. It is yet to be published in the official gazette (1), (2).

For the National Police, the 2008 career regulations (currently being reviewed), provide for promotions and rank attributions to be approved – as it appears without independent oversight – as follows: by the president (commissioners), the interior minister (senior officers), respective commanders (junior officials and lower ranks).

The 2010 Constitution gives the president, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, broad powers to appoint, promote and dismiss senior officials of the armed forces and the police, without conditions beyond consultation of the Council of National Security (1). The procedures for promotion for lower-level officials are laid out in the recently passed Law on Military Careers (not available online).

Postings and promotions of senior officials by presidential decree are regularly published in the official gazette, though without much detail (1).

Postings and promotions of senior officials by presidential decree are regularly published in the official gazette, though without much detail (1).

Promotions in the ranks of the Armed Forces since 2016 are the responsibility of the Chiefs of the General States of the Armed Forces, without civil intervention. These are decided based on qualification meetings and in accordance with the current regulatory framework, by seniority and/or by selection. The Ministry of Defence is in charge of the designation and retreats of senior military personnel and of the auditors corresponding to each force. The promotions occur annually with respect to the personnel who have satisfied the requirements determined by the Law for Military Personnel. In relation to the advancement of the superior personnel of the armed forces, these are granted by the Executive Power, after prior agreement of the National Senate. The treatment of promotion documents is dealt with in the Senate Agreements Committee and then goes to the vote for approval in parliamentary session. As for the promotion of the Subaltern Personnel of the Armed Forces, in accordance with the regulations of Law No. 19,101, the Chiefs of EMGFFAA are responsible for determining promotions. The qualification of the skills of the personnel that should be considered, for the purposes of their promotion, is in charge of the Qualification Boards (Advisory Commissions and Qualification Boards for the different hierarchies and the Higher Qualification Board) which analyse the personal files of the perpetrators, acting as advisory bodies in their respective Armed Forces. This process is based on a table of scores that add or subtract to determine an order of merit. The General Directorate of Integrity, Transparency, and Institutional Strengthening and the National Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, informing the General Directorate of Military Affairs, are involved in all promotion, reinstatement, appointments, and commissions abroad. [1] [2] [3]

Among the exceptions according to the Law of Military Personnel, the personnel that are found may not be promoted: with sick leave, the prisoner of war or the disappeared person, and who will be in passive for being prosecuted. It is also considered as an exclusive reason for not having passed the compulsory courses within the military training and having had “very serious” sanctions contemplated in the Code of Discipline of the Armed Forces. The granting of degree by other means is contemplated by the regulations on the military. In times of peace and on the occasion of extraordinary events that have the character of a war in which the individual performs a heroic act that may cause death, they may be promoted to the immediate superior degree, even if the minimum time for promotion has not been fulfilled yet. [1,2,3]

The publication of the promotions is made known by the approval of the specifications in the Senate of the Nation (and its publication in the Official Gazette) and mainly by the media and news section of the Forces. However, there is no evidence published by the Ministry of Defence on a public and regular basis regarding these promotions. Although the names and grades are known, other details such as the destination are not publicly evidenced more than one month in advance. Information on these aspects can be requested through the access form to public information.

The publication of the promotions is made known by the approval of the specifications in the Senate of the Nation (and its publication in the Official Gazette) and mainly by the media and news section of the Forces. However, there is no evidence published by the Ministry of Defence on a public and regular basis regarding these promotions. Information on these aspects can be requested through the access form to public information.

Personnel promotions are conducted through formal appraisal processes and promotions boards for all personnel, though there is little independent scrutiny being paid to the promotion of senior personnel. It is the internal policy of the MoD. Promotion of senior and middle command personnel is made through a testing system [1, 2]. For civil positions, the Law on Special Civil Service regulates the appointment of special civil servants. Article 16 օf the Law outlines the provisions that are applied while appointing special civil servants that are unchangeable (the latter was contested, here is the clarification by a high official at the Civil Service Board: the term unchangeable guarantees that civil servants are not dismissed once political changes occur in the country). All mid and senior-level positions are filled in through a competition provided the persons participating in the in-competition qualify the criteria for a particular position [3].

Neither the Law on Special Civil Service [1] and the Law on Military Service [2] provide any clause on exceptions in awarding ranks out of formal procedures. Promotion of senior and mid-level command personnel is made through a testing system [1, 2].

According to Article 16 of the RA Law on Military Service and the Status of Serviceman military rank is awarded by: 1) The RA President – military ranks of the supreme command staff, upon the proposal of the RA Prime Minister. 2) Head of a state authorized body – senior officers and “lieutenant” military ranks; 3) officials appointed by the order of the head of a state authorized body – the military ranks of other officers, non-commissioned officers, and common soldiers … not mentioned in the second paragraph. The appointments of supreme command staff are published in the official website of the President or (if the President of the Republic does not comply with the requirements set forth in the Law) a written statement is signed by the Prime Minister and published on the official website of the Government. [1] However, there is no publicly available source that provides an accurate complete list of released ranks, positions, appointments, and promotion cycle.

According to Article 16 of the RA Law on Military Service and the Status of Serviceman military rank is awarded by: 1) The RA President – military ranks of the supreme command staff, upon the proposal of the RA Prime Minister. 2) Head of a state authorized body – senior officers and “lieutenant” military ranks; 3) officials appointed by the order of the head of a state authorized body – the military ranks of other officers, non-commissioned officers, and common soldiers … not mentioned in the second paragraph. The appointments of supreme command staff are published in the official website of the President or (if the President of the Republic does not comply with the requirements set forth in the Law) a written statement is signed by the Prime Minister and published on the official website of the Government. [1] In all other cases, no consistent and regular publication of both military and civilian personnel’s postings and promotion are found.

There is little information available on the formal processes behind promotion for both Public Service and military personnel of the Department of Defence (DoD), though processes do exist. As recently as 2015 [1], there was more information available about both the Public Service and military personnel promotion process; however, the Public Service guide APS People Policy (formerly the Defence Work Relations Manual) has apparently been removed from the public domain [2], and the updated Military Personnel Policy Manual (MILPERSMAN) contains less information about promotion than it once did [3]. However, MILPERSMAN does reveal that all members are meant to face promotion boards, and must meet eligibility criteria set by the Service Chief [3, p2-3]. Australian Human Rights Commission issued a report in 2012 titled “Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force,” [4] along with a follow-up audit, which revealed that the Services have begun to add “external” members to promotion boards for senior ranks. However, these “external” members are not necessarily from other service branches or entirely independent civilians, such as with Navy’s external members, who are former Navy civilians [5]. Because public service promotion policies are set by each agency and the Defence policy is no longer publicly available, only general information about public service promotion being “merit-based” is accessible. According to the Public Service Act 1999, any promotion process must assess: 1) the relative suitability of the candidates for the duties, using a competitive selection process;
2) the relationship between the candidate’s work-related qualities and those work-related qualities genuinely required for the duties; and
3) the relative capacity of the candidates to achieve outcomes related to the duties; and “[this] assessment must be the primary consideration in making the promotion decision” [6]. For the recruitment of senior civil servants, including those working for the DoD, an independent member of the Australian Public Service Commission must sit on the selection board [7]. Promotions may be reviewed according to established Complaints and Resolution policy [8].

Acting ranks are only used in exceptional circumstances at the very highest level of the Australian Defence Force, and the only other means of awarding rank are promotion and ceremonial honorary ranks. According to the Defence Act 1903, the Vice Chief of the Defence Force acts as the Chief of the Defence Force during absences from duty or if they are unable to perform the duties of their office [1]. The Governor-General may also appoint an Acting Vice Chief of the Defence Force during absences from duty or if they are unable to perform the duties of their office [1, s. 13(2)]. The Defence Regulation 2016 allows the Chief of the Defence Force to appoint an Acting Chief of any of the services if they are, similarly, absent from duty or unable to perform the duties of their office [2]. There are also honorary ranks which may be conferred on any person by the Chief of Defence Force or Governor-General, however, these do not imply a right to command unless expressly conferred by the Chief of Defence Force [2, p31-32].

The Australian Public Service, including Defence Public Service, has a searchable online archive of all promotion, hiring, retirement, movement, and other employment decisions [1]. Military personnel, however, do not have a public archive of this sort [2], though announcements on promotions and other employment decisions may be made available to an internal audience.

This indicator has been scored ‘Not Applicable’, as no information is released about postings and promotion cycle for military personnel. It is worth noting that this is fully accessible and searchable for civilian personnel (see Q42C).

Criteria for promotion and appointment are not well regulated. According to the Law on Military Duty and Military Service (1), the duration of military service (from soldiers to colonel-lieutenant) to military ranks is determined (Article 31.3). Additionally, the term of colonel (captain of the 1st rank) and other senior military ranks are not determined (31.4). The law does not contain particular military positions or encourage the promotion of servicemen. Rotation rules are not met either, in several cases officers have been serving in the same military unit for many years; they are not rotated. In some cases, military units located on the front line or in remote districts are used as a place of punishment for officers. However, the Defence Ministry states that there are no problems (2). According to a Ministry of Defence official, there is a formal process in place regarding appointments and promotions in the chain of command, which is set out in internal documentation, and it accessible to army officers. This formal process is incomplete and is regularly undermined by the undue influence of senior leadership (3).

There is no specific legislation on appointment and promotion in the army (1), and internal regulations on promotions are weak. There are no concrete strategies for the appointment and promotion of the personnel, including the commander’s staff within the Defence Ministry and other military structures. As such, officers have no channel through which to bring issues before the high command and or through which to request the enforcement/ implementation of regulations. As a result, the system of appointment is highly ineffective.

Moreover, there are unlawful interventions of internal and external actors regarding the appointment and promotion of the staff (2). Loyalty, acquaintance and other factors play a key role in the appointment and promotion (3). This system does not affect low to mid-level appointments as much, it is not a central factor in those promotions.

Information on appointments and promotions in the Ministry of Defence and other military units is often not published. In some cases, the press is informed about appointments (1).
In general though, the list of appointments is not published entirely within the system or outside of the system. So, a general list of appointments is not available to the staff or to the public (2).

As no information about postings or the promotion cycle is available, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

There is a formal process of promotion, but the very top echelon and medium level positions are usually promoted through a royal decree. Loyalty is taken into consideration and is the most important aspect rather than merit [1, 2]. The process starts by nominating the officers by major generals and then approved by the minister. The nominations are given to and approved by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. There is no vetting process, and meritocratic measures are not taken into consideration all the time [1, 3]. The legislators are not involved at all with the names and promotions. They rarely announced to the public (with exception to heads of the army and commanders).

As the promotions pass through royal decrees, there is no other power or authority can affect these royal decrees [1, 2, 3].

Based on interviews and an online search, there is no information about postings or the promotion cycle. Interviewees state there is no information about the process of promotions [1, 2, 3].

As outlined in 42C, there is no information available on the cycle and process of promotion(s), and therefore this indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ [1, 2, 3].

There are formal appraisal processes in place for personnel promotions, such as the Annual Confidential Report (ACR), unit records and the promotion/pay roll [1], however, in the absence of any oversight, it is impossible to say whether these processes are fully complied with. During the parliamentary election of 2018, some 150 former officers of the armed forces expressed solidarity with the Awami League and pledged to work towards the party’s victory in the national election [2]. Those who were dropped from promotion, even after fulfilling all merit criteria, grudgingly refer to undue political interference throughout the process [3]. The military leadership prefers ‘intelligence reports’ before promoting an official [4], despite there being no such provision in the promotion rules.

The Bangladesh military has no official system in place for awarding rank outside the command ranks. A Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) can, at best, move up to the rank of Honorary Lieutenant or Honorary Captain in the special category, but cannot become a Commissioned Officer. Similarly, a Non-Commissioned Officer cannot move up to the entry position of JCO [1].

Information on postings and promotions of both civil and military personnel is published through gazette notifications. Military notifications are published in Part 3 of the official gazette, however, these are not available on the website [1]. The media only picks up information on important military and civil promotions if it has ‘news value’.

It is mandatory for the Government Press to publish official gazette notifications of postings and promotions, and this is done regularly by the respective ministries, including the MoD. Notifications issued by the Ministry of Defence are published in Part 3 of the official gazette, however, these are not available on the website [1].

Regulations on personnel promotions are stipulated in the Royal Decree of 7 April 1959, the Ministerial Decree of 31 March 1971, the Ministerial Decree of 23 September 1977 and the Ministerial Decree of 5 November 2002 [1, 2, 3, 4].

These outline the requirements of promotion, the regulations on the promotion boards and the appraisal processes respectively (although there is spillover of these topics into the other documents). In summary, personnel promotions are based on promotion files (‘bevorderingsdossier’), the content of which is clarified in an internal circular [5]. This file is scrutinized by the promotion board.

The board consists of general officers in and out of the chain of command and transcending the grade of the candidate. They rank all candidates based on suitability and predefined criteria, after which an official advice is given. For higher ranking officers, this is then approved by the Minister of Defence. While there is a clear framework for personnel promotions, the highest levels, starting from brigadier-general, are subject to political influence [6]. The promotion system is currently being revised and will depart from a Netherlands or Denmark-oriented model. This means that one applies for a position and automatically gets promoted to the rank related to this position [7].

Awarding an acting rank is not an official policy within Belgian defence [1]. However, the current function a candidate occupies is taken into account in the promotion process [2, 3, 4, 5]. It is one of the many criteria used to rank the different candidates and has a large value. The promotion system is currently being revised and will depart from a Netherlands- or Denmark-oriented model. This means that one applies for a position and automatically gets promoted to the rank related to this position.

After a promotion committee, a list with names, ranks, new post and effective dates of the promoted individuals is drawn up and shared with the public via the Belgian Official Gazette [1]. This often also results in a press report.

Details of postings and promotions are published in the Belgian Official Gazette, whish is published monthly [1]. The publication precedes the effective date. Secondly, the postings are also disclosed on the intranet of Belgian Defence, where all defence personnel has access to [2]. Promotions take place each quarter of the year and the postings follow this pattern.

According to the Law on Service in the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Rulebook on the Promotion of BiH Military Personnel, all promotions are carried out by the Promotion Commission appointed by the minister of defence except for the rank of general (and there are no external members (outside of chain command) scrutinising the promotion process of senior officers). Appointment and dismissal of generals in the armed forces is under the authority of the Presideny of BiH [1, 2, 3].

The Rulebook on Promotion of Military Personnel in BiH Ministry of Defence and BiH Armed Forces states promotions are only based on proved professional skills as a subject to measurement of performance following pre-set criteria [1].

There is an annual plan for promotion within the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with the Rulebook on Promotion of Military Personnel in BiH Ministry of Defence and BiH Armed Forces [1]. The annual plans for promotion are adopted by the minister of defence on the proposal of the commander of the Joint Headquarter. The annual plan for promotion states the number of ranks to be promoted in the armed services. These documents are not publicly available [2].

According to the government reviewer, the availability of information on promotions is an activity that is transparent within the MoD and AFBiH, as regulated by the Law on Service in the AFBiH and the Rulebook on Professional Development and Career Management and the Rulebook on the Advancement of PVL in the MoD and AFBiH. All members of the MoD and AFBiH have an insight into rank lists that are formed by publicly available criteria and have the opportunity to object with appropriate arguments. These Regulations, in addition to being on the MoH BiH website, are also available on the website My Inspector, which was commissioned and designed by the MoI in April 2019 [3].

There is an annual plan for promotion within the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with the Rulebook on Promotion of Military Personnel in BiH Ministry of Defence and BiH Armed Forces [1]. The annual plans for promotion are adopted by the minister of defence on the proposal of the commander of the Joint Headquarter. The annual plan for promotion states the number of ranks to be promoted in the armed services. These documents are not publicly available [2]. Rare postings are published on promotion events, but no details are publically available. [3]

The promotion of the personnel is defined in the law. Depending on the post of the promotion that needs to be filled, there have been cases reported where some promotions have been controversial [1]. For example, the promotion of the BDF Commander by the former President Ian Khama, who was then replaced by another new BDF Commander when President Mokwetsi Masisi came into power raised eyebrows on the selection and appointment process of the BDF Commander [2].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. Ranks are awarded in terms of the Botswana Defence Force Act (Cap. 21:05) and the Defence Force (Regular Force) (Officers) Regulations, as amended [1,2]. However, it has not been established if there are exceptions to promotion other that which is prescribed by law.

Postings and promotions are not published except for the top high ranking officials [1,2,3]

No information about postings and promotions is published. A search of government websites and media sources did not reveal this information.

Law 5.821 of 1972 [1] is the general law for military promotions, and each of the single forces has its own system. This law establishes the following criteria for military promotions: (a) seniority; (b) merit; and (c) choice (power restricted to the president, to chose the commander of each single force); and additionally, (d) for bravery and (e) post mortem. The law also establishes the preconditions candidates must comply with to be considered for the list of choices, which are personal and professional excellence – both evaluated through all the military career. All promotions are registered by decree (in the cases of generals and superior officials, or by internal regulations – portarias (in the case of all other ranks. There is also a Promotion Committee (Comissão de Promoções de Oficiais) in each of the forces, which is responsible for organizing and conducting the elaboration of these lists of choices. The decrees related to this law, for each single force, are very detailed and establish all the conditions, expertise and courses one must have in order to accede to a rank [2, 3, 4]. Vacancies are published in each force’s internal bulletin, which is available online (Boletim do Exército) [5], and also the results of the promotion. Promotions are not subject to external scrutiny.

All the possible ways of promotion are listed in Law 5.821/1972, and Section VI of the Army’s Promotion Rules [1, 2].

All promotions are publicly declared, but they are limited to the name, rank and effective date [1]. However, new posts are published separately from promotions, in the Boletim do Exército [2].

Only after the official and public publication of these promotions do they start to be valid. They are posted in an internal bulletin, at least once a year [1].

According to Article 88 (1) of Law No. 038 (2016), there is an evaluation process for military personnel conducted by the soldier’s supervisor at least once a year (1). According to Article 89 promotions occur continuously in ranks and categories ordered by degrees or orders.
According to Article 93 the “promotion to a higher rank can be made normally or exceptionally.” To get a promotion, the officer should have their names listed on the promotion board ahead before the promotion decision, which is made based on the order of the list of the promotion board (1). However, as pointed out earlier, corruption is widespread almost in all professional areas in Burkina Faso (2), (3), (4), (5). The BTI report goes further by stating that, “there is evidence of nepotism and favouritism in broader government appointments and promotions” (3), (4). Therefore, formal processes are in place for the promotion of personnel, but they are regularly undermined by undue influence or inappropriate conduct.

An exception to the provisions of Articles 88; 89 and 93 of Law No. 038 (2016), on the general status of the National Armed Forces, providing normal promotion acquisition processes, exists. And this exception lies in Article 163 of Law No. 038 (2016) and is about the appointment to the rank of general. In fact, according to this article, the “appointment to the rank of general concerns officers with the rank of colonel holder of a diploma from a war school, or equivalent on the proposal of the defence minister, following the insight of a technical committee within the defence ministry.” However, the appointment to the rank of general has raised lots of issues recently; for example, former Prime Minister and Colonel Yacouba Isaac Zida got promoted to the rank of general at despite not holding the rank of major colonel. The legislation at that time allowed for a colonel can be appointed, in exceptional circumstances, as a general. Therefore, exceptions to the normal promotion path exist, and are used (1), (2), (3), (4).

According to Article 93 of Law 038 (2016), “perspective incumbents should have their names listed in the promotion board ahead prior to the promotion decision, which is made based on the order in of the list provided in the promotion board.” The list in the promotion board is published, and staff members can get a copy upon request, publication of the list is made in advance of their effective date, but there is no evidence that postings and promotions are available for the civil service (1), (2), (3).

According to Article 93 of the Law 038 -2016/AN of 30 December 2016, on the general status of the National Armed Forces, “perspective incumbents should have their names listed in the promotion board ahead prior to the promotion decision, which is made based on the order in of the list provided in the promotion board” The list in the promotion board is published, and staff members can get a copy upon request. and publication is made in advance of their effective date, but there is no evidence that postings and promotions are available for civil service [1] [2] [3].

The military has a procedure for career growth which is based on longevity in service, level of discipline and performance. However, often these criteria are overlooked and personnel are promoted based on tribal sentiments or ethnic affiliations [1] [2]. Some promotions within the ranks of the military are bought [2,3] [5]. However, it is important to note that some promotions come about solely through Presidential appointments. To get to the rank of General in the military in Cameroon does not depend on your adacemic or military training. Military generals are appointed at the discretion of the President of the Republic [1,2] [3].

A November 2016 report by the International Crisis Group points out that some soldiers posted in the Far North to fight Boko Haram “have seen their promotions effectively frozen because they are not free to take the required training courses, while those who have remained in Yaoundé have been promoted,” suggesting that some sort of formal process does exist, at least in terms of required training courses. The same report recommends that special measures be taken “to ensure fairness in the pay and promotion of soldiers, particularly those deployed to the front,” indicating that such fairness does not currently exist.

In addition, Cameroon Concord (Jan 2015) stated that “Police recruitment in Cameroon [is a] fiasco as many candidates are caught with fake university degrees and diplomas” [4].

No evidence could be found to point to the existence of regulations addressing exceptions. In addition, personnel are promoted based on tribal sentiments or ethnic affiliations. Some promotions within the ranks of the military are bought and some promotions come solely through Presidential appointments. [1,2] [3]. This indicates that there are no controls governing appointments that occur outside of the formal process.

Appointments and promotion to certain key positions are published on the website of the Presidency of Cameroon and in the Cameroon Tribune. Most appointments to administrative positions are broadcast on Cameroon Radio and Television, the national radio and television station [1]. While there is evidence that details of some promotions are published (including name, rank, new post and effective date) [1], there is no evidence that all promotions are published.

While there is evidence that details of some promotions are published (including name, rank, new post and effective date) [1], there is no evidence that all promotions are published. In addition, the information may not be published on an annual basis, and the details may not be published prior to the effective date. There is also no evidence to suggest that equivalent information is available on request for civil service counterparts.

According to DOAD 5059-0 (Performance Assessment of Canadian Forces Members), there are different methods of assessment based on position and role within various areas of the Canadian Forces. The Regular Force are assessed under the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). The Primary Reserve are is assessed under the CFPAS, with any additional instructions issued by the applicable environmental commander or equivalent. Cadet Organisations Administration and Training Services are assessed under the CFPAS if the CF member is on Class “B” Reserve Service at National Defence Headquarters or at a Regional Cadet Support Unit, or under the Cadet Administrative and Training Orders in any other case. Canadian Rangers are assessed under the CFPAS if the CAF members is on Class “B” Reserve Service; or as directed by the applicable area commander or equivalent in any other case. Supplementary Reserve Forces are assessed in accordance with the requirements applicable to the component or sub-component to which the CF member is attached. [1] Civilian Staff are promoted through competitive bidding processes (either internal or public postings) according to guidelines set out by Canada’s Treasury Board Secretariat. The competitions are for the most part, merit based; however sometimes managers can limit the criteria to favour incumbency. [2] The Public Service Commission (PSC) has a responsibility to ensure that appointments in the public service, including DND, “shall be based on merit and free from political influence. [3] At the same time the PSC has documented a dramatic increase in appointments made in a non-advertised (thus less transparent) fashion after rules were changed in 2016, whereby the PSC no longer states a preference for advertised positions. [4] The PSC has on occasion investigated nepotism and revoked appointments. [5]

There are exceptions at the higher levels of the command structure. Promotion to the second highest rank, where the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is the “seul maitre à bord”, creates opportunities and the potential for nepotism and a move away from merit-based promotions. [1] Neither the Minister of National Defence nor the Canadian Parliament plays any official role in the selection or appointment process for most senior military commanders – this responsibility also sits with the CDS. [1] [2] The CDS is appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and as such there is no other involvement from the Canadian legislature in the appointment; nor is there any direct political hand in the appointment of senior personnel under the CDS. [3]

The Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System is intended solely for use by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. As such, the system is password protected for managers to complete confidential performance appraisals, so the criteria for promotion is not sufficiently clear to the public. [1] According to the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services (CFMWS), as of “February 29, 2012, the Canadian Forces Administrative Orders (CFAO) collection will no longer be available on the Canadian Forces internet site and will only be available via the local Intranet site for all Canadian Forces members and DND employees”. [2] This is due to these orders being “superseded and incrementally replaced by DOADs, manuals, and standard operating procedures”. [2] CFAOs had been used for past practices, which makes it difficult to gauge deficiencies or improvements in this area; however current DAODs are readily available online. DAOD 5059-0 (Performance Assessment of Canadian Forces Members) supersedes CFAO26-6 (Personnel Evaluation Reports). [3] Promotions above OF-4 are published as annual news listing “General and Flag Officer senior appointments, promotions, and retirements” by name, rank, new post, but there is insufficient clarity by effective date. [4] This covers NATO rank equivalents of OF-6 and above. No equivalent announcement is found for senior public servants (civilians), though press releases are issued for top positions (e.g., Assistant Deputy Minister appointments). The Government Electronic Directory Services (GEDS) provides a directory of public servants but it excludes the bulk of National Defence employees. Phone numbers are given for senior DND positions (not named), if not for senior personnel. [5]

Postings and promotions for high ranking officers are regularly published and made available online, but only for General and Flag Officers. [1] While material relating to the promotion on the civilian side is not published in the same manner, the Government Electronic Directory Services (GEDS) provides a publicly accessible, but limited, directory of public servants across Canada where phone numbers are given for senior DND positions (not named), if not for senior personnel. [2]

Formal processes for military and personnel promotions are established in the Organic Constitutional Law of the Armed Forces and the Statute of the Personnel of the Armed Forces [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. The regulations describe a process guided by meritocratic and objective criteria (seniority, rank). However, promotion exclusively occurs within the respective branches of the armed forces, and there is no evidence of scrutiny by independent personnel outside the chain of command. Likewise, there are no institutional references of members from separate branches participating on the boards as independent observers. There is evidence of politicisation in the selection of senior officials, induced by the corporatisation and self-regulation of the branches of the armed forces [6]. The government has responded by proposing a project to modernise military careers. This includes, among other things, the extension of its duration and the postponing of retirement benefits and the deepening of meritocratic criteria over seniority for appointment and promotion [7].

There are regulations that establish possible exceptions in cases of awards and the awarding of medals; these regulations specify the circumstances and the ranges required for the exceptions [1, 2]. However, there is no evidence that this system has a significant impact on the promotion of military personnel.

There is no updated institutional information about the promotion cycle. Information can be found on the branches of the military’s websites, but not with the details established in the question [1, 2, 3, 4].

There is no updated institutional information about the promotion cycle. Information can be found on the branches of the military’s websites, but not with the details established in the question [1, 2, 3, 4]. This indicator has been scored as ‘Not Applicable’.

Personnel appointments and promotions processes have to follow the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Officers in Active Service (2000). Article 11 stipulates that “Leading cadres and political departments at various levels shall, in line with their division of responsibilities, appraise officers governed by them. The appraisal shall be conducted in a comprehensive way by the leaders together with the rank and file, in compliance with the basic requirements for officers and the criteria, procedures and methods for the appraisal of officers formulated by the Central Military Commission, with stress on actual performance. The results of the appraisal are divided into three grades, excellent, qualified, and unqualified, and shall be taken as the main basis for appointing or removing officers. The officers concerned shall be notified of the results of the appraisal”. According to Wang, [1] the decision-making power over personnel matters in the PLA is concentrated in the hands of a few officers within each unit, whose authority over promotions and appointments is poorly controlled through checks and balances. Promotion boards are part of the command chain and operate without independent oversight. This has led to rampant corruption, with extensive buying and selling of positions and promotions. [2,3]

The promotion regulations of the 2000 Law put the emphasis on military, academic and technical training for promotion (Article 10). [1] According to Article 9, wartime promotions are possible: “When needed in times of war, soldiers, enlisted reserve officers, and persons in non-military departments may be directly appointed as active officers.“ There are no further rules limiting the circumstances of further progression.

The only information that is circulated regarding promotions refers to CMC and top general ranks. [1] The 2000 Law does not contain availability of information clauses, and there is very limited publicly available evidence that postings and promotions are published internally and made available to all personnel. [2] Limited and fragmented information on promotions can be derived from outlets such as the PLA Daily and Caixin.

The only information that is circulated regarding promotions refers to CMC and top general ranks. [1] Information is not published routinely or regularly.

Law 1405 of 2010, [1] Decree 1790 of 2000, [2] Law 1104 of 2006, [3] and Decree Law 1791 of 2000, [4] stipulate requirements officers and sub-officers must meet for promotion purposes, including conditions of conduct, professional and psychophysical, the minimum time of service established for each rank, professional capacity, and classification for promotion among others. According to Interviewee 8, [5] there are meetings and commissions responsible for studying the resumes and the fact sheets of each officer, sub-officer and civilian of the ministry, taking into account the needs and requirements of each Force in terms of rank and number. However, the procedure is not independent and outside the Force. It is within the chain of command, within the prism of the Personnel Command of each entity of the Ministry of National Defence. Formal evaluations of the Armed Forces, the Colombian Army, the National Navy, and the Air Force, occur within the advisory board of the Ministry of Defence, [1] while, for the National Police, there are two evaluation bodies, the Evaluation and Classification Board that reviews the processes of promotion for sub-officers and the Advisory Board of the Ministry of Defence that evaluates the promotion of officers. [4] The regulations that determine the competences and procedures of these evaluation and classification boards are Decree 1799 of 2000, [6] which defines two types of authorities in the process: evaluators and reviewers. The first is composed of active officers of a higher rank than the officer being evaluated, who are responsible for the promotion process; and the second is responsible for the verification of the evaluation process, reviewing the actions of the evaluator and the evaluatee. This authority is comprised of the Commander of the Unit, immediate or superior to the evaluator. [6] These procedures for promotion are not independently run, but are internal processes.

Article 52 of Decree 1790 of 2000 outlines special reasons for promotion. It stipulates that “Military Forces officers and sub-officers who have been victims of the crime of abduction, upon verification of the facts by the competent authority, shall be promoted to the Degree immediately higher than they held at the time of the abduction.” [1] The State Council clarifies that this provision does not mean that the Executive has an obligation to promote the officer, since it has the discretion to make the decision. The State Council considers that military members promoted in captivity who are unable to meet all the requirements of promotion should be assessed only on the minimum time of service stipulated in the standards, which is supported in Article 9 of Law 1279 of 2009. [2]

The information presented on promotions and transfers is generally given on the different websites of the Armed Forces and on the website of the Senate of the Republic. [1, 2, 3] For the promotions of the sub-officers, detailed information on destination is not published, and publication is made after the transfer ceremony. The information available on officers is more complete, sometimes clearly disclosing destinations of transfer and resumes of officers, as well as their experience. This information is contrasted with the information obtained by the Congress of the Republic through the congressional gazettes, where it ratifies the promotions of the military. [4] The information is published by Congress in accordance with the promotion schedule of the officers and sub-officers and executive level officials in June and December, and March and September, respectively. [4] There is no information available on whether or not publishing a list of transferred members and their destinations or promotions for all of the Military is required.

Officer promotions take place in June and December. For sub-officers and executive level, these occur in March and September of each year. [1] There is no information available on whether or not publishing a list of transferred members and their destinations or promotions for all of the Military is required.

There is a formal process for promoting military personnel. The promotions do not always follow the formal processes established by Law No. 2016-1109 and can be decided behind closed doors. Law No. 2016-1109 (Portant Code de la Fonction Militaire) of 16 February 2016 contains provisions regarding the system for promoting military personnel. This Law repealed the previous Act No. 095-695 (Portant Code de la Fonction Militaire) of 7 September 1995. As with sub-indicators 41A-C, the Law should be seen within the context of military reforms after the post-election crisis of 2010-2011. The provisions of Law No. 2016-1109 regulating the formal process of promoting military personnel are contained in Chapter 5 (Notation et avancement), Articles 74 to 78:

Art. 74 – “A promotion (avancement) is pronounced under the same conditions as an appointment, as follows: (1)
– by appointment, in the case of a change of rank;
– by a promotion, in the case of a change of rank within the same category.”
Art. 75 – “A promotion is the transition to a higher grade. It takes place either by choice or by seniority.”
Art. 77 – “Subject to operational requirements, the promotion to a rank lower than that of Major Colonel must be registered in the progress table established each year” (1).

Furthermore, Article 73 stipulates that military personnel must be evaluated on an annual basis and the evaluations are taken into account based on professional qualifications and the quality of the officer’s service. Article 73 states that the evaluation must be carried out in an objective fashion and excluding personal opinions, as well as philosophical, religious or political beliefs. In addition, the ethnic origin cannot be taken into account when promoting an officer. Finally, officers have a right of appeal if they disagree with an evaluation (1). Article 47 refers to the role of the Promotion Commission in promoting military officers based on the names officially registered on the Promotion Board. Art. 46 states, “the Promotion Commission formulates the appointments based on the Promotion Board (Tableau d’Aancements). It may also decide on the proposals for promotion on an exceptional basis.” Although the formal process is codified to be objective and meritocratic, individual promotions, especially for higher-ranking military personnel, sometimes do not take place as per Articles 74-78 of Law No. 2016-1009.

The provisions in Article 76 of Law No. 2016-1109 spell out the terms of promotion for military officers based on exceptional circumstances. Article 76 allows for acting rank and battlefield promotions, but also contains rules limiting this type of promotions such as the fact that in times of peace officers can only benefit from one exceptional promotion. Law No. 2016-1109 (Portant Code de la Fonction Militaire) of 16 February 2016, specifically Chapter 4 (Nomination), contains the provisions governing the exceptional promotion (avancement à titre exceptionnel) of military officers. Article 76 permits the awarding of battlefield promotions (services exceptionnels) or promotions based on heroic actions (actions d’éclat), but within certain limits and according to specific requirements (1).

Art. 76 – “Can benefit from a promotion in exceptional circumstances, the officer:
1. author of a heroic act or having performed exceptional services;
2. serious or fatal injury;
– either during law enforcement operations or operations within a war campaign;
– in the exercise of judicial police missions;
– even outside the service, by performing an act of bravery in the public interest, risking his life;
3. victim, because of his military status, attacks or acts of violence;
4. service requirements” (1).
In times of peace, no one can benefit from more than one promotion in exceptional circumstances. Promotions on an exceptional basis may be awarded posthumously to a member. There is no honorary promotion.

Promotions are made publicly available and in advance of their effective date. They are decided by a presidential decree based on the official Promotions Board (Tableau d’Avancement) for the following year. But the official announcements fail to include details about the reasons for the promotion or any other information other than the name and rank awarded. In an official government press release, the Presidential website announced the promotion of nine senior officers in the armed forces (Forces Armées de Côte d’Ivoire, FACI), the Gendarmerie and the national police for 2018. The promotions were announced in the context of the final meeting of the Council of Ministers in 2017. The procedure followed was for the president to sign the decrees and then to notify the Council of Ministers, which issued an official communiqué providing only the names and ranks of those promoted (1).

In December 2017, Infodrome.ci reported that President Ouattara had signed several presidential decrees promoting the senior officers. Among those promoted was Army Chief of Staff Toure Sekou who was promoted to General rank corps (Général Corps de l’Armée) and Kouakou Kouadio Nicolas, who was promoted to division general (Général de Division). Infodrome criticized the promotions arguing that it was an attempt by the executive to consolidate power ahead of the 2020 elections (2). Pressivoire noted that the military promotions announced by President Ouattara on December 19, 2017, took place following the last annual meeting of the Council of Ministers. At the same time, Pressivoire reported that the president had also signed several separate decrees to register senior officers in the armed forces, Gendarmerie and national police on the Promotions Board for the following year (3).

Promotions are made publicly available and in advance of their effective date. They are decided by a presidential decree based on the official Promotions Board (Tableau d’Avancement) for the following year (1).

Guidelines and rules for personnel promotions are described in summary form on the Defence employee website [1, 2] and in the HR strategy [3] while a link to the full regulation is also provided on the employee website [4, 5]. Promotions to first lieutenant happen “automatically” upon completing officer’s training. For the higher levels of captain/lieutenant commander and major/commander the following is stated: promotion in ranks will happen in relation to the candidate’s application for and entering into a new and higher position. Promotions will be based on assessments within the hiring authority of the applicant’s qualifications in relation to the posted position. In this assessment, a view to the candidate’s general suitability for the level/rank across the services and units must be made. Decision-making authority rests with the agency managers (“styrelseschefer”), but he/she can delegate the authority to an underlying level of staff. Specific qualification requirements are listed as well. Within these guidelines, research found no evidence of the existence of a regular promotion boards and no information on the promotion of the senior military chief level (lieutenant colonel/senior grade commander – general/admiral), but it must be assumed that these happen by individual application as well.

Guidelines for acting ranks and/or battlefield promotions are published on the Defence employee website [1]. They are short and somewhat vague: here, it is stated that temporary promotion is allowed in exceptional cases within the national strcuture (“when deemed necessary”) and in some cases within the international structure. The authority of decision rests with the agency managers (“styrelseschefer”), but he/she can delegate the authority to an underlying level or staff. A breveted rank does not increase pay. Thus, guidelines do exist but they are not very comprehensive or informative.
The MoD, defence chief and agency directors have decided to initiate a new project with a adjusted concept for promotions and staffing of positions at the colonel and Captain (N) level from 1st of January 2020.
Two reasons have been identified there for an ad hoc process to be put in place: (1) a position becomes vacant unforeseen, (2) candidate meets the requirements por the position. Then, he/she may be promoted by individual order or ad-hoc promotion board meeting take place. [2,3]

Research did not find any regulations on the public declaration of all officers above OF-4, nor did it find indications that the Defence follows such a practice [1]. There is evidence that the Defence does publish news about some postings and promotions on its website, but this does not appear to be a regular or rule-bound practice but part of the news stream [2].

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as no information is released about postings and promotion cycle.

According to our sources, some laws and regulations set the criteria, conditions, and requirements for promotions. However, these criteria are regularly bypassed and broken, especially at the middle level, exceptions do happen (1), (2), (3). Law no. 232 (1959) sets out the appointment and promotion systems for Armed Forces officers (4). Article 27 of the law sets seniority as the main criteria for promotion until the rank of lieutenant colonel. The other criteria, as set out by Article 23 of the same law are annual and bi-annual competency reports prepared by senior officials in the chain of command. However, for more senior, and therefore more crucial, positions are appointed either by the president of the republic for top senior positions or by the CIF for less senior positions. There is also a board called lagnit al-thobaat (The Officers’ Commission) within the MoD that is responsible for the promotion of officers until the rank of lieutenant colonel based on competency reports prepared by their superiors.

Article 30 of Law no. 232 allows for exceptions to the seniority rule for officers who “conduct glorious acts in the battlefield”. However, the law does not set out the person/entity responsible for making such decisions and whether it is based on objective criteria. And as discussed in 42A promotions for ranks above lieutenant colonel are largely based on discretion, and is not an almost automatic process like that for less senior officials.

Only postings and promotions of senior officials that are issued by a ministerial or presidential decree are public and its information available, such as with the presidential decree to promote Mahmoud Higazi to the rank of lieutenant general (1). There is no evidence that information on other postings and promotions has been ever made public.

Only postings and promotions of senior officials that are issued by a ministerial or presidential decree are public and its information available, such as with the presidential decree to promote Mahmoud Higazi to the rank of lieutenant general (1). There is no evidence that information on other postings and promotions has been ever made public.

TheMilitary Service Act stipulates the granting of ranks: the Commander of the Defence Forces grants ranks to senior non-commissioned officers, the Commander of the Defence Forces or a Chief of service grants ranks to junior non-commissioned officers and the Chief of service or the commander of a structural unit of the Defence Forces grants ranks to soldiers. [1] The promotion is based on the level of education and military training. There is no board involved. Moreover, there is evidence that the procedure is not always based on objective criteria. For example, according to the representative of the Defence Resources Agency, the decision can be made by the commander of the unit based on motivation, skills and “other things” during the base training. [3] Also, it was publicly stated by an officer and a lecturer at the Estonian National Defence College that promotion, after a serviceman has received the required qualifications, is character-based. [2]

One of the few exceptions to the promotion and appointment of ranks that is stipulated in the Military Service Act describes the employment in a diplomatic post at a foreign mission, at an international organisation or at international military headquarters temporarily. [1] In addition, an exception applies during state of war, mobilisation and demobilisation, but it has to do with the lowering of ranks. [2] Therefore, there are no other means of awarding rank described, and no other regulations.

The publishing of postings and promotions is not required by law, [1] but the top management ranks granted by the President are published on the President’s website. [2] The list of ranks and names are published based on the Commander of the Defence Forces’ recommendations after the ranks have been granted, not before. The website of the Defence Forces publishes the number of ranks granted – without the names – in the news section. [3]

Postings and promotions are very rarely published (less frequently than annually) hence not regularly. [1]

According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces [1], officers’ posts are defined as military posts in the Decree on the Defence Forces (1319/2007), Chpt 2, Section 7 [2]. Eligibility criteria related to officers’ post are given in the Act on the Defence Forces (551/2007), Chpt 4, Section 37 [3]. Further eligibility criteria related to the highest ranking posts have also been specified. The mandate for assigning officers to their posts has been defined on the basis of Act on the Defence Forces, Act on Military Crisis Management (211/2006) and the Decree on the Defence Forces.

According to a statement of the personnel section of the HQ, personnel planning covers the whole personnel and is carried out according to the principles of task and follower planning. In all stages of personnel planning and the process of task ordering, openness, equal comparison and assurance of objectivity are ensured. In practice, this means particularly ensuring that the procedures are open, personnel that meet the egilibility criteria are aware of the possible positions, they have real and equal opportunity to announce their interest in the positions, and that the comparison between candidates is conducted on the basis of mutually uniform criteria, follwing the principle of equal comparison, and without inappropriate external influence.

Furthermore, the personnel section of the HQ has expressed that the personnel working in the military positions in the Defence Forces composes a close community in which everyone knows each other from the military schools’ entrance examination onwards and throughout their career. According to the statement, this state of affairs makes it close to impossible for incomptent individuals to be promoted to demanding positions on an inappropriate basis. [1] The principles of task and follower planning are explained, for example, in the personnel strategy of the Defence Forces [4]. There is a 12-person board with representatives from all services and branches (all generals) that goes through the potential for promotion (including then proposing a promotion) of every officer from Lieutenant Colonel upwards according to 12 separate categories (education, performance on the field, international connections [both positive and potentially compromising], psychological evaluation, and so forth). Ultimately, it is the President of Finland who promotes officers (including all reservists). Non-commissioned officer ranks also have a clear process and requirements of promotion, but as with Captain and lower-ranking officers, the process is lighter. [5]

According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, officers’ posts are defined as military posts in the Decree on the Defence Forces (1319/2007), Chpt 2, Section 7 [1]. Eligibility criteria related to officers’ post are given in the Act on the Defence Forces (551/2007), Chpt 4, Section 37 [2].

Further eligibility criteria related to the highest ranking posts have also been specified. The mandate for assigning officers to their posts has been defined on the basis of Act on the Defence Forces, Act on Military Crisis Management (211/2006) and the Decree on the Defence Forces. According to a statement of the personnel section of the HQ, personnel planning covers the whole personnel and is carried out according to the principles of task and follower planning.

In all stages of personnel planning and the process of task ordering, openness, equal comparison and assurance of objectivity are ensured. In practice, this means particularly ensuring that the procedures are open, personnel that meet the egilibility criteria are aware of the possible positions, they have real and equal opportunity to announce their interest in the positions, and that the comparison between candidates is conducted on the basis of mutually uniform criteria, following the principle of equal comparison, and without inappropriate external influence.

Furthermore, the personnel section of the HQ has expressed that the personnel working in the military positions in the Defence Forces composes a close community in which everyone knows each other from the military schools’ entrance examination onwards and throughout their career. According to the statement, this state of affairs makes it close to impossible for incompetent individuals to be promoted to demanding positions on an inappropriate basis. [3] It is possible to promote someone at lower ranks after an exercise, but even then, and even if occurring outside normal promotion schedules [twice a year for officers], it follows same procedure. So, it is possible, but not an exception in the sense that the established processes would not be followed. Rather, it is an exception in terms of frequency or schedule. [4]

The Defence Forces issues press releases on new postings in advance. These are available e.g. on the website of the Defence Forces. [1] Sotilasaikauslehti (military magazine) publishes advance information about military personnel postings every second month as the magazine is published six times a year. Information provided include the rank, name, new position, and the date from which onwards the person holds this position. [2] Ruotuväki (military newspaper) publishes the composition of the Generals of Finland annually, always as on the first day of the year [3]. No similar information is available on civil positions.

The Defence Forces issues press releases on new postings in advance. These are available e.g. on the website of the Defence Forces. [1] Sotilasaikauslehti (military magazine) publishes advance information about military personnel postings every second month as the magazine is published six times a year. Information provided include the rank, name, new position, and the date from which onwards the person holds this position. [2] Ruotuväki (military newspaper) publishes the composition of the Generals of Finland annually, always as on the first day of the year. [3] Promotions take place on given days such as independence day and are published, for example, in the main newspapers and in Ruotuväki. [4, 5].

There are formal processes in place: a commission composed of people who are hierarchically higher than the applicant being considered for promotion presents the list of candidates for promotion to the Minister of Defence. Age, merit and experience are taken into consideration by promotion boards for all personnel. [1] But no hard objective criterion or clear brackets are in place to assess the merit of one applicant.
There is no mention of an independent oversight body that governs this process, even less so for senior personnel.

Beyond the formal processes outlined in 42A, other means of awarding rank do exist, though they are exceptional: “Except in cases of exceptional action or exceptional services, promotions take place on a continuous basis from grade to grade and no one may be promoted to a rank unless he has a minimum length of service in the lower grade, fixed by regulation” (Article L4136-1 of the Code de la défense). [1] The Code includes an exception for temporary military appointments to be made, “either to fulfill functions for a limited period, or in time of war” (Article L4134-2). Specific provisions are in place in these cases. The decree n°2008-958 [2] concerning exceptional military promotions mentions: 1st “bravery or glorious feats duly registered”; 2nd “very seriously injured or deceased in combat”. These servicemen are written down on the normal year promotion table.

However, no regulations that place requirements on further progression (where exceptions are not temporary) were found in the public domain.

The promotion table of the officers is published once a year, or at any moment for the senior ranks and postings: see Promotion table for 2019 [1] ; decree of 18 June 2019 with promotions in the services [2]; decree of 21 August 2019, with promotion of general officers [3]. The published information includes the full name, previous rank, new rank and effective date of the promotion for each officer.
Such information on civil servants is also available. [4]

The promotion table of the officers is published once a year, or at any moment for the senior ranks and postings: see Promotion table for 2019; [1] decree of 18 June 2019 with promotions in the services; [2] decree of 21 August 2019, with promotion of general officers. [3]

The promotion of military personnel is formalised by the ‘Regulations governing careers in the military profession’ (‘Soldatenlaufbahnverordnung’) [1]. The process is regulated by a special provision issued by the Ministry of Defence (‘Zentrale Dienstvorschrift: Beförderung, Einstellung, Übernahme und Zulassung von Soldatinnen und Soldaten’) [2]. This provision notes that superiors must make an initial selection of promising candidates based on merit. However, before promotion, candidates must pass qualification examinations. For officer-level promotions, the Armed Forces Staff Management Office (BAPersBw) is responsible for selecting suitable candidates [2]. While members of the chain of command are involved in the promotion process to a degree, there are various verification mechanisms in place to ensure qualification.

However, the current performance assessment and selection system applied by the Bundeswehr is considered outdated and unsuited to fulfil expectations of a practical and fair system. The BMVG is currently designing a new system which is expected to launch in July 2021 [3].

The Federal Civil Service Act (Bundesbeamtengesetz) stipulates that quick promotions are at odds with the mentality of the public administration. For 2018, the Ministry reported only one case of ‘jumping ranks’ among civilian staff [1]. A government response to a parliamentary enquiry made in 2018 indicates that during that year, no cases of ‘jumping ranks’ (‘Sprungbeföderung’) could be reported [2].

Information about the appointment/promotion of senior personnel is only circulated within the Armed Forces/Ministry of Defence (see also Q41C) [1].

Promotions of military personnel (especially higher ranks) are only published within the Armed Forces and/or BMVg management. No information is communicated publicly.

Promotions follow a similar process as appointments, the president, who is also the Commander in Chief, promotes the military personnel based on the recommendations expressed by the Ghana Armed Forces Council (1).

Information about the promotions circulates in the media once these promotions have already entered into force.

No information is made publicly available by the MOD or the GAF regarding the existence of a regulation limiting the possibility of awarding ranks or earning promotions in the battlefield.

Little to no information is released about postings or the promotion cycle. The only information that is sometimes disclosed (i.e. CV, position, etc.) is occasionally published by the media after approval (1), (2).

Because little to no information is released about postings or the promotion cycle, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

Law 2439/1996 states that the leadership of the Armed Forces is selected by KYSEA: the Government Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence (Article 15). [1].
Other officers are promoted by three types of promotion councils defined in Law 3883/2010 [2].

Personnel promotions do not always follow formal appraisal processes; for example, decisions may be unjustifiable based on objective criteria, or promotion boards may have members from within the chain of command [3]. However, this is not a widespread or common practice. Political parties often disagree over top promotions [4, 5].

The MoD permits other means of awarding rank, but there are regulations that limit the possible circumstances and place requirements on further progression. Article 3 of Law 2439/1996 explains under what special circumstances certain desk officers can be promoted. However, these regulations are vague or unclearly stipulated [1]. There are some regulations regarding specialised officers, such as IT experts, who can be recruited by the MoD under urgent circumstances (Article 2 of Law 3883/2010) [2]. They are almost regarded as civilian personnel.

Promotions for all personnel are publicly available (Presidential Decrees are issued and publicised).[3].
As concerns postings, most of the relevant information is only available to military and civilian personnel of the MoD [1]. Limited information is released about postings and promotion cycle. In 2019, for instance, the MoD announced the recruitment of military personnel with certain specialisations (e.g. meteorologists) whereby some information was released about their promotion [2].

Details of postings and promotions are published regularly (at least annually) within the system and in advance of their effective date [1, 2].

Promotions do not always follow the formal appraisal processes. Formal procedures do exist, as well as structures (promotion boards, etc.). However, realizing objective criteria in promotions is not easy, due to several factors. First, the armed forces are very small, so there are a lot of personal contacts and informal networks all across their structures. Second, again due to the small size, if often happens that members of the chain of command are parts of the promotion committees too. Third, in some cases, a person gets promoted only to make his/her salary competitive vis-a-vis salaries on the civilian labour market in the same profession, thus the promotion is to keep an employee. Though these cases are not widespread, their existence indeed indicates that promotions do not always follow the prescribed appraisal procedures [1].

There are clear elements of exceptions built into the promotion system. Regarding military personnel, over the rank of colonel, all promotions have to be approved also by the minister of defence himself, which opens the way for politically motivated decisions. Regarding civilian staff, over the position of head of the department, all promotions have to be approved by the Prime Minister’s Office. This mechanism has been referred to by all our sources are a channel of political influence, i.e. suggested promotions get approved based on political motives [1]. There is no specific legal ground for the exceptions.

Postings and promotions are regularly published but without details on either the reason of the given promotion (whether it is a regular promotion related to the years spent in service, or is it connected to a new position, or an extraordinary act of merit) or on any other circumstances [1]. In the Defence Bulletin, only high ranking promotions are available [2].

Promotions are only openly declared for OF-6 and above; before promotions happen in a decree issued by the President of Hungary. These decrees are published in military bulletins [1]. The declarations happen several times a year.

In theory, the promotions mechanism is objective and meritocratic across the branches. A Special Promotions Board makes recommendations based on criteria such as length of service, discipline and medical [1]. The inputs before the Selection Board for empaneling officers for higher ranks are Confidential Reports (CRs) [2]. In the case of high-level appointments, the Establishment Officers Division processes proposals to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) [3]. Recommendations of the internal boards are subject to MoD scrutiny. An expert has suggested that the ACC can be open to political coercion [4].

There has been controversy surrounding the mechanisms. The Indian Navy courted such controversy in 2014, after the promotion of a key aide to the Chief of Naval Staff. The officer was promoted without serving the mandatory time at sea, which was seen as nepotism. The one-time exception declared at the same time gave officers who have not qualified for the key Command Examination another chance to appear and qualify for the rank of captain. This was viewed unfavourably by the naval establishment [5].

In 2015, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) upheld Army HQ’s changes for Higher Command Courses. An officer filed a petition stating, “The changes which are effected from time to time by the Military Secretariat are arbitrary and are not based on detailed study.” [6] Changes to the system, rendered the officer ineligible for the Higher Command Course. The courses help to identify outstanding personnel at higher ranks. In 2018 it was reported that, the Army issued a directive to the Military Secretary’s Branch to delay the consideration of such courses in promotions from Brigadier to Major Generals and Major General to Lieutenant General by a year to help ‘widen’ the talent pool [7][8].

In the case of high-level appointments, the ACC is the supreme authority in monitoring and permitting appointments [1]. Therefore a Force cannot in theory, solely permit any other means of awarding rank without requirements needed for further progression. Field promotions or acting ranks may be possible as exceptions. These are however, temporary and only in active field areas.

That said, there have been accusations of nepotism in promotion in the Forces as mentioned earlier [2].

Information on rank, promotion timescales and policies are publicly available [1][2][3]. Promotions are published on a weekly basis in The Gazette of India, both in print and digital for online distribution. Name, rank, new post and effective date are given [4][5]. High-level appointments are published in the government’s Press Information Bureau releases and mainstream media outlets [6][7][8].

As aforementioned, promotions are published on a weekly basis in The Gazette of India both in print and digital for online distribution. Name, rank, new post and effective date are given [1][2]. High-level appointments are communicated when they occur, through the government’s Press Information Bureau releases and mainstream media outlets [3][4][5].

The promotion of TNI personnel is based on a career pattern [1], which is a plan that illustrates how TNI personnel careers will develop during their military service, in terms of position, rank and education. The basic career pattern of an officer consists of:
(1) Basic development period (0-11 years/Second Lieutenant – Captain) where officers are placed in positions that enable them to master tactics, weapons, techniques, etc. that develop leadership qualities.
(2) Professional development period (11-20 years/Major – Lieutenant Colonel) is for the development of tactical and technical skills, as well as the development of the ability to integrate knowledge with these skills. This period is a selection phase for more difficult and complex assignments, including the fields of staff, education, territorial guidance and command of a larger unit. Elected officers will receive general staff education and Forces command, while non-elected personnel are developed through specialised education.
(3) Service and further development period (20-24 years/Colonel). This period is marked by an increasing number of assignments that are not related to specific forces and require skills in the fields of general staff functions. In this period, officers are placed at a high level of the profession.
(4) Darma bakti period (high ranking officer until the end of the military service). This is the last period of the career of an officer for whom the focus has shifted from the maximum development of their skills to their dedication, demonstrated by applying the talents and abilities that have been developed during his career.

Based on this career pattern, the promotion of TNI personnel is based on the development of positions in accordance with length of service and rank. Regular promotion is granted at certain times to personnel who have fulfilled the terms of office and a review period is arranged for two periods per year (April 1 and October 1). In addition to the technical guidelines for career patterns, promotions and transfers of personnel are determined based on HR evaluations by the Personnel Assistant of the Chief of Staff [2] and two meetings of the Rank Council (Wanjakti). The TNI Headquarters held a Rank Council meeting with the Chief of the General Staff of the TNI (Kasum TNI), the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army (Wakasad), the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Navy (Wakasal) and the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force (Wakasau) [3].

Special promotions are awarded in the form of extraordinary promotions and appreciation promotion awards. Extraordinary promotion (kenaikan pangkat luar biasa/KPLB) is granted when a soldier performs an act of service that goes beyond their call of duty, whereas an appreciation promotion (kenaikan pangkat penghargaan/KPH) is granted to career soldiers towards the end of their military service because they have carried out perfect service without fault or interruption with a high level of dedication and good work performance [1]. The decision on granting extraordinary promotions (KPLB) is the authority of the Chief of TNI. The decision on granting appreciation promotions (KPH) for the ranks of Colonel, Brigadier General and Major General is the authority of the President, while the decision on granting KPH for the ranks of Major and Lieutenant Colonel is the authority of the Chief of TNI [2]. The DPR RI’s fit and proper test in the process of selecting the Chief of TNI includes a publicly broadcasted administrative inquiry and interview focussing on the candidate’s vision and mission as Chief of TNI; it continues with a closed-door, in-depth interview [2]. The DPR RI then holds a closed meeting to decide whether or not to approve the candidate.

Details of promotions are published through the official TNI channel after the Chief of TNI’s decision has been issued. This information includes name, rank, new post and effective date [1]. For TNI personnel stationed in civil institutions, transfers/promotions are decided by authorised officials after obtaining approval from the Chief of TNI [2]. The TNI does not announce information on planned transfers/promotions on a regular/periodic basis. Vacant positions may be publicly known if any members of personnel are retiring or being transferred, meaning the position is vacant and must be filled by a member of personnel with a certain rank level. The rank requirements for filling positions are usually known to the public, but prospective personnel are not disclosed and the personnel selection process is carried out internally in the TNI. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain whether personnel are promoted based on merit or the suitability of their expertise. For example, personnel who already have procurement expertise (with national certification) do not necessarily hold procurement positions.

Postings and promotions are published concurrently with events, such as tours of duty/area and retirement. Sometimes it happens every few months, usually more than once a year. The media mostly covers postings and promotions for the positions of colonel and above. But there are also instances of the media publishing about the promotion of a liutenant colonel to a position previously held by a colonel [1]. These reports are published on the effective date of the posting.

The promotion process within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is laid down in the Law on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’s Employment Regulations [1], and for the Army is laid down in the Law of the Army of Iran [2].
In terms of promotion boards, Evaluation Commissions are provided for in both laws. However, this would seem to be undermined by undue influence. According to Bayram Sinkaya, a specialist on Iran’s IRGC, “confirmation of the Representative of the Leader (or his own representatives) is required for almost all decisions related to promotion, appointment, and discipline” [3].

Article 116 of the Law on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’s Employment Regulations states personnel shall be awarded according to ability and fitness, and this includes seniority. Article 216 (b) of the same regulation provides that “Rewards for personnel granted before adjustment in accordance with the instructions prepared by the Corps’ General Staff and approved by the Commander-in-Chief shall be considered in their promotions. Their maximum rate of seniority shall be 7.5 months for each year of record of service and at most one rank” [1].

Little publicly available information was found indicating that postings and promotions are published. The following sources were consulted to identify relevent information [1, 2], but no relavant information was found. The heads of various IRGC units are publically known and announced [3]. While the Imam Hussein Military Defence Academy has a section related to exams and tests [2], at least the public version of the site was not updated.

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as no publicly available information was found indicating that postings and promotions are published. The following sources were consulted [1, 2, 3], but no relevant information was found.

Processes underpinning personnel promotion over the past ten years are marked by political and informal biases. This is particularly noticeable through the rise of informal security institutions later absorbed into the official security apparatus (1). Rapid promotions of ideologically loyal volunteer units have both undermined the existence of meritocratic promotion criteria and an inclusive army culture. Political and ideational agendas are the greater force influencing promotion decisions, rather than governmental policies. The rise of a third security actor has opened up informal channels of recruitment, under which no criteria exist (2). An example that predates the PMF from 2006, when Maliki moved to incorporate militia units into the army, in what later became known as the Damej forces’ (3). Maliki placed close aides in high ranking positions, using the Office of the Commander and Chief to consolidate power and “bypass other state institutions” (4). Such undue-influence and unchecked authority sidelined the parliament’s involvement over the development of these disparate security forces (3). As one source identifies, 14,000 men were absorbed into the army every 5 weeks and “in 6 years” the army “quadrupled in size” (4). Widespread evidence of competing allegiances, bribes to secure positions, the absence of centralised formal process, implies that no formal processes driven by an objective rationale exist.

The sale of government positions is mirrored, but this increasingly used practice is not an exception prescribed in any national Iraqi laws (1), (2). A leaked recording scrutinised across local press outlets reveals a conversation lack of consensus over the suitability and credence of existing officers (3). An interview presented with the recording argues that “political patronage to either Iran or America means that any existing formal criteria based on meritocracy loses all relevance”. The transfer order of US-trained Abdul Wahab al Asaadi from Lieutenant General of the Counter-Terrorism Service to the MoD sparked outrange from high-ranking politicians including the former PM and members of Iraq’s parliamentary security committee. Opposition figure Ammar al Hakim stated that the decision “sends a false message regarding [an] existing appointment and transversal mechanisms”, particularly concerning the national security portfolio, but also across other sectors.

Accessible information on job promotions across Iraq’s military establishment is scattered. The Penal Code No. 19 discusses limited promotion opportunities for those found guilty of military offences. Looking into Iraq’s Military Service and Retirement Law, the absence of a meritocratic-process is seen and further coverage shows various attempts to amend the law. It emphasises that those due for promotions must be born to Iraqi parents and aged between 20 to 28 years to qualify for MoD posts (1). It offers a break down of the duration soldiers seeking promotions must wait (1). The law makes it clear that promotions must fulfil the conditions stipulated. However, political party quotas undercut any meritocratic criteria particularly in the context of parliamentary elections; a defective system that has stirred both coverage and controversy among the population and media (2). “National institutions are hostage to personal and political gain” one source notes “including job promotions”. Press outlets have underlined the above as causes that precipitated the speedy collapse of Iraq’s army (3), (4). Junior cadets have denounced the absence of a formalised appointment system which does not protect them against bribes. Available data places these bribes, for junior soldiers looking to secure a training post at military academies, anywhere from $3,000 (3) to $500 (5). The prevalence of ghost soldiers, as is widely reported, offers evidence of this, in addition to the political deadlock following last year’s elections, over key security appointments. The key problem, one source summarises, is that “political jockeying” over-sensitive security posts intensifies “as regional patrons were reluctant to allow key ministries to go to candidates backed by their rivals” (6). The system is thus compromised, as Iraqi analysts Renad Mansour (7) notes, by “sectarian or ethnic quotas, rather than on merit.” The final decision as a military expert told Transparency (8) rests with the commander-in-chief whose way out of the specified deadlock were more informal negotiations and attempts to skirt over parliamentary quorum which was unsuccessful”. In direct response to whether information promotion boards exist, none were discoverable or publicly accessible, but the decision must be approved by defence officials and the respective minister.

No information is available on postings and the promotion cycle.

Personnel promotions are conducted through formal appraisal processes and promotions boards for all personnel (1) (2) (3). The selection process between candidates is done in accordance with the High Command Instruction 3.0228 “Commissioned Ranks – Principles of Promotion in IDF Ranks – Regular Service”, which was approved by the MOD and which determines principle for promotion in officer ranks (4). General Staff Directive 32.0202 “Principles of Promotion of Commissioned Ranks in the IDF – Regular Service” and the Manpower Directorate policy regulate the parameters for promotion in ranks. These parameters include academic education, seniority in service, security clearance, recommendations and references from commanders, and relevant courses and training. Promotion to certain positions may also require passing specific tests or courses (5). However, there is little independent scrutiny being paid to the promotion of senior personnel, .e.g., promotion boards may not have independent observers. There are also some hints that some decisions are made based on favouritism, because people working in the field know each other very well (6).

If a force permits any other means of awarding rank, regulations that limit the possible circumstances and place requirements on further progression exist but they are vague or unclearly stipulated. The IDF High Command Instruction 3.0228 for instance allows for personnel to be promoted outside the normal process in “exceptional cirumstances” but this is vageuly defined. (1), but some information is publicly available (2) (3). This was also critised several times by the State Comptroller based on examples from the police (3). The State Comptroller warned that an appointment that is not in accordance with an orderly procedure may open the door to non-optimal staffing and even appointments due to unprofessional considerations for the most senior positions in the police (4) (5) (6).

Information on postings and promotions are published regularly within the system, and in advance of their effective date, but they do not include all information which was also critised several times by the State Comptroller based on examples from the police ,e.g. (1) (2) (3).

Information on postings and promotions are published regularly within the system, and in advance of their effective date, but they do not include all information which was also critised several times by the State Comptroller based on examples from the police ,e.g. (1) (2) (3).

Process for career advancement is defined by the Code of the Military System, that delineates the criteria for a promotion (art 1031). Permanent commissions evaluate, for each armed forces, the personnel suitability for advancement against particular merits or seniority. Although Title VII of the Code is very detailed, there is no mention of the occurrence of scrutiny from independent personnel or of the presence of members of different branches of the armed forces as independent observers. Article 1041 of the Code of the Military system states that the Deputy military Secretary General and the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff must be consulted when the commissions evaluate officials who are of a different armed forces branch [1]. The annual report of the Anticorruption Supervisor highlights that corruption occurs in the working area of personnel acquisition and advancement [2].

A member of the armed forces can be promoted for merit of war, as stated in articles 1336 et seq. of the Code of Military System [1]. Promotions for merit of war are clearly regulated and defined. The direct commanding officer draws the request for promotion that has to be transmitted within three months since the occurrance of the exceptional event. The Minister approves it, with previous unanimous consensus of the evaluation committee. To be promoted by merits of war, it is essential to distinguish oneself brilliantly in the planning or the execution of war actions.

In 2019 the Italian constitutional court [1] judged art. 14, 1(f) of legislative decree 33/2013 on duty of publicity, transparency, and spread of information from public administrations [2] as unconstitutional. As a consequence, decree-law 30 December 2019, n. 162 [3] provides for a postponement of deadline for the publication of informations regarding personnel. Although the rule of unconstitutionality, the information regarding both civil and military managerial positions, has been updated. Indeed, on the website of the Ministry of Defence, one can find the following information: Name and Surname, rank, effective date and new post. Nonetheless, not all information is available for all branches. In some cases it is possible to access just name and new post. [4]

Details of postings are published for both civilian and military personnel [1]. According to the information available on the website, there is a lack of regularity from six months to once a year, for advancement regarding military personnel [2].

To be eligible for appointment to higher officer positions, an officer must pass the entrance exams and complete specific courses. [1] Selection for a position among those who have taken the courses will follow personnel assessment according to standard criteria (see Q41A). [2] The use of assessment by persons outside the chain of command when making appointment decisions is not mentioned in Article 31 of the Self-Defence Forces Act [2] or in four ordinances with implementing guidelines, [3] [4] [5] [6] however. Appointments to positions above the level of Colonel are done by the Minister of Defence, and appointments to positions below that by the Chief of Staff of the service branch. A retired higher Marine Self-Defence Force (MSDF) officer stated that in this service branch, Vice-Admirals scrutinise the promotion of personnel outside their chain of command, and commanders outside the chain of command provide input in processes to appoint higher offices by answering a questionnaire (see Q41A). The retired officer did not know what practice the ground and air self-defence forces have. [7] No evidence was found that promotion boards are established, although there are procedures for appointers to receive advice from outside the chain of command, as explained by the interviewee. Committees that assess exams to determine promotion to higher officer or sergeant rank may include Self-Defence Force (SDF) personnel in administrative positions from outside the service branch concerned, however. [8]

A retired higher Maritime Self-Defence Force officer, who has commanded a regional MSDF district command, stated that in principle, such other means of awarding rank are not permitted. An exception is the appointment of Military Attaches, who are temporarily (earlier than they otherwise would have been) promoted to Brigade General or Colonel rank. After their attache service is over and they have returned to Japan, the promotion is made formal. [1] One Ministry of Defence (MOD) document with implementing guidelines on personnel administration lists extraordinary situations in which it is possible to promote a person to a higher rank without having conducted a full personnel assessment. This includes situations where the person has temporarily held a position outside the Ministry of Defence. [2]

The general rule is that when SDF officials are appointed to higher officer positions corresponding to NATO rank OF-5 or above, (i.e. General, Major General, Colonel), the name, rank and current position of the officer, the position appointed to and the date on which the appointment will commence are made public on the website of the MOD. [1] This information is made public on the day that the appointment commences (or on the next working day, if that day is a holiday). [2] Equivalent information is not provided for civil service counterparts, but the MOD does keep an updated list of executive civil service staff on its website. [3]

Details of postings and promotions to positions corresponding to NATO rank OF-5 or above are published on the website of the MOD on the day that they are effective. [1] An examination of these webpages indicates that postings and promotions to positions corresponding to NATO rank OF-5 or above are, in fact, consistently published, but that postings and promotions to positions corresponding to NATO rank OF-4 seldom are. Furthermore, postings are made quite frequently, for example ten times in December 2019. [2] While postings are published very frequently, they are not published for all positions within the scope determined in Q42C (i.e., not for positions corresponding to NATO rank OF-4) and they are not published in advance of but on their effective date.

Law No. 35 of the year 1966, Officers Service Law of the Armed Forces, issued in accordance with Article 126 of the Jordanian Constitution, clearly sets out a formal procedure for the promotion of officers. Interestingly, this law is made available via the website of the Jordanian civil defence [1]. The law sets out the formation of officers’ committees, constituted of independent personnel that are outside the chain of command and considered relatively independent. In relation to promotions, the committee convenes and consults the chain of command of each officer, whose performance it reviews. The criteria for promotions, however, as stipulated in the law, remains loose and lacking in clear procedures. Despite the existence of a promotion process, there is little information on whether this process is carried out objectively. This could especially be the case due to the culture of ‘wasta’ and using connections [2]. Promotions are conducted through formal appraisal processes, and there is an independent officers’ committee that makes decisions in relation to promotions. However, it is very likely that these promotions are influenced by tribal bias. In addition to that, senior positions within defence are granted through royal decrees and royal appointments, and do not go through the same promotion process as those in non-senior positions. The scoring also took into consideration the fact that it cannot be verified that this process is followed through.

The King, the Commander in Chief, and the Minister of Defence, can issue exceptions to decrees of promotions, and there are no regulations that restrict them from doing so. However, they make such exceptions by promoting their loyal subjects. They carefully select them to have the minimum qualifications to avoid public criticism and tribal anger [1,2]. According to Law No. 35 of the year 1966, Officers Service Law of the Armed Forces, issued in accordance with Article 126 of the Jordanian Constitution, the only exceptions to awarding ranks, other than the process explained above, are (1) in case an officer demonstrates exceptional excellence and competence, ranks may be awarded without taking the criteria into consideration, (2) through royal decrees in cases of war and mobilisation, and (3) the awarding of honorary military ranks [3]. The law shows that no force is exempt from these regulations and these exceptions are very limited in the first place.

Information about promotions in the defence forces are published periodically and have been made public since 2013. In addition to the promotions in 2016, an official copy of the list of promotions and retirements for 2015, 2013, and a partial list of the promotions for 2011, have also been published in the official gazette in hard copies only in Jordan [1,2,3]. The promotions of very senior posts are published in newspapers with name, rank, new post, and effective data, but without the promotion cycle.

Information about promotions in the defence forces are published periodically and have been made public since 2013. The list is published after its effective data but annually [1,2,3].

The main formal process that anchors promotion of members of the Defence Forces is only stated in the Kenya Defence Forces Act states under section 29 (2) whereby it states that the Defence Council shall on the advice of the SRC shall determine the condition of service of members of the Defence Forces. [1] For other Civilian Staff, the Public Service Commission Competency Framework for the public service, provides a basis for recruitment, selection, promotion as well as training and development for military staff withing public service [2]. Promotions are regularly announced by the MOD however there are limited details on how the Defence Council conducts the promotions and the criteria used to make the promotions.

Decisions on recruitment and appointment of military personnel are made by the Defence Council as stipulated in the Kenya Defence Forces Act, 2012. [1] The council consults with the Public Service Commission in making appointments and promotions for mid-level positions. However, any other means that the Defence Council may use to award ranks is not divulged.

The appointment and promotion of officers above OF-4 in the Kenya Defence Forces have to come directly from the President. The Defence Council plays the key role in the appointment and promotion of officers above OF-4, which is entirely an internal process (Kenya Defence Forces Act 2012, s292 (2). [1]

There is no evidence of participation of external promotion boards or independent oversight of the process. However, any reshuffling within the forces is made public through mainstream media. Details of officers appointed and promoted are published including names, ranks, new posts, and effective dates of the appointments. Besides what is published in the media, none of the information is available comprehensively, even on request of the civil service. Some senior officers who have been dismissed in the past have raised concerns over lack of transparency and clear process of the Defence Council when handing the promotion as well as dismissal procedures. [2]

At least once every year, the KDF effects certain changes in its ranks. However, there is no evidence of a definite cycle of promotions and appointments within the forces. The changes are made public only after they have been effected, and the time of year when the changes are made varies. In 2016, the President made a mini reshuffle within the military in July. [1]

In October 2017, the media reported of quiet changes in the military ranks, with no further information divulged from the Department of Defence. [2] In May 2018, the President made changes in the military, extending the terms of the Chief of Defence Forces, and making other appointments and promotions. [3]

Current legislation stipulates that one of the general criteria for promotion is the annual performance assessment, including the recommendations for promotions over the previous two years [1]. The Filtration Group is tasked with verifying stafff profiles [2] and has to ensure that all relevant information and materials are available to the Appointment and Promotion Boards, including annual performance assessments, disciplinary records, educational qualifications and records on professional trainings of the Kosovo Security Force members as well as other relevant documents [2]. However, the Ministry of Defence’s Integrity Plan for 2019-2022 challenged the need for a performance assessment, suggesting it was necessary to build a more efficient performance appraisal system for civilian and military personnel [4].
Boards have been established for the promotion of all military personnel [5], apart from ranks of Lieutenant General (OF-8) [5] and Major General (OR-7) [5]. Given that these positions are of the highest rank, their promotions are conducted directly by the President of Kosovo based on the recommendations from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Commander of the Security Forces [5].
The Regulation No. 03/2018 on Career Development of the Kosovo Security Force Members does not specifically outline that promotions to more senior ranks are open to scrutiny by external assessors. This regulation only states that the appointing authority (here the Minister of Defence or the Commander of the Kosovo Security Force) has the right to appoint observers from within the Ministry of Defence, as well as international observers; however, these do not have the right to vote [4].

The Regulation No. 03/2018 on Career Development of the Kosovo Security Force Members allows for ‘acting duty’ appointments to one rank higher for a period of no less than six months and no longer than twelve months [1]. This occurs based on the needs of the Kosovo Security Forces and only when a certain position considered key is made vacant [1]. These appointments last until the following meeting, and the subsequent decision is issued by the Appointment and Promotion Board [1]. The regulation states that such appointments are conducted, where possible, within the hierarchy line of the same organisational unit, although occasionally the candidate may be chosen from another organisational units [1]. These appointments are conducted by the Commander of the Kosovo Security Force in accordance with proposals from departments or units at a brigade level or higher [1]. The Appointment and Promotion Board then reviews the files of any member who has in an ‘active duty’ position for over six [6], to assess whether promotion should be granted [1].

The Ministry of Defence publishes military staff promotion news on its website [1-3], and when these promotions are of senior personnel (officers at rank OF-4 or above), the Ministry publishes their name, previous rank and new position [3]. However, this information is only published a month after any given appointment [3].
This information is also published in the annual report of the Ministry of Defence [4].

The Ministry of Defence publishes military staff promotion news on its website [1-3], and when these promotions are of senior personnel (officers at rank OF-4 or above), the Ministry publishes their name, previous rank and new position [3]. However, this information is only published a month after any given appointment [3].

There is no indication of a formal process but appointments and promotions are subject to the scrutiny of the SAB, auditors said (1, 2 and 3).

The interior ministry, however, has a committee which evaluates hiring decisions, but it is inside the chain of command and its head is selected by the interior minister himself, according to article 8 of Law. 23 of 1967 for police affairs, and that provides the MOI with the semblance of internal oversight (4).

Article 72 of the police law and 73 of the military law allow the interior ministers, who already have the power to set the criteria for promotions according to article 60 of the police law and 59 of the military law, the power to promote any officer responsible for “excellent work or service” by one rank (1 and 2). There are no provisions to limit this power.

Some information on postings and promotions may be published from time to time, but rarely before their effective dates and they do not receive much media attention, officials said (1,2). For example, the recent decision to appoint three new assistant ministers in May 2017 (3). KUNA simply named the three new officials, Mohamed Youssef al-Sabah (from the royal family), Abdulla al-Mahna and Khaled al-Deyeen; and listed their new titles without offering any further details. The picture of the interior ministry is larger than the text announcing the appointments in the news story.

Some information on postings and promotions may be published from time to time, but rarely before their effective dates and they do not receive much media attention, officials said (1,2). For example, the recent decision to appoint three new assistant ministers in May 2017 (3). KUNA simply named the three new officials, Mohamed Youssef al-Sabah (from the royal family), Abdulla al-Mahna and Khaled al-Deyeen; and listed their new titles without offering any further details. The picture of the interior ministry is larger than the text announcing the appointments in the news story.

The defence sector has an approved personnel policy, and anti-corruption measures oversee appropriate actions. The content of the Military Service Law indicates the system is a meritocracy. Article 19 of the Military Service Law stipulates that a person may be admitted to a professional service if he or she complies with the requirements of the state of health, education, professional and physical preparation, knowledge of the state language and moral and psychological properties determined by the Minister of Defense.[1] In accordance with Article 25 of this Law, in the case of professional assessment and certification, a soldier’s direct commander carries out the performance of duties and tasks of the soldier’s service and the assessment of personal qualities. Article 27 of the same law states that an officer is in office for a maximum of five years. After this deadline, he is transferred to another post.

There appears to be very little publicly available information about promotion cycles. The Audit and Inspection Service, in accordance with the Internal Audit Law as well as the approved internal audit strategy and internal audit plan of the Ministry of Defence however, carry out regular audits in this area. [1] [2] [3]

Article 27 of the Military Service Law states that an officer is in office for a maximum of five years. After this deadline, he is transferred to another post. The Minister of Defense, in view of the soldier’s specialty or the need for a service, may extend the officer’s appointment. Officers are transferred according to their speciality. [1] There are, however, no other documents to support the application of this principle.

The information is not publicly available due to security reasons. [1]

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable as no information is released about postings and the promotion cycle. The information is not publicly available due to security reasons. [1]

LAF personnel promotions are conducted through formal appraisal processes that are laid out by the National Defense Law (1). However, there is little independent scrutiny being paid for the promotion (1). For example, the Military Council, the LAF commander, minister of defence, the Council of Ministers, and the president, are involved in the approval of military personnel’s promotions and appointments, depending on the positions and ranks, are not independent observers (1). LAF’s officer corp maintains a 1:1 Christian Muslim parity which is integrated into the approval decisions for promotions (2).
There are few examples of promotions are publicized, mainly for the graduation of students officers from the Military Academy, who are promoted to second lieutenant (3), and appointments to senior positions where officers are automatically promoted (4). While the formal selection process for all personnel is not publicized, a source indicated that rules are followed with considerations to the sectarian composition of the forces (5).

In addition to the regular promotional progression, the National Defence Law (NDL) specifies exceptional cases for awarding ranks (1). The means, for instance, include, “performed admirable acts during military operations or operations for preserving security or interior armed engagement” (2). Martyrdom is also stated in the NDL as one of the exceptions for awarding a higher rank (2).

Depending on the ranks and positions of the promotions, information is published (1). For example, the appointment and promotion of senior ranking officers, such as Military Council members, are announced and published online (2). On the other hand, the promotion of lower-ranking officers names and new posts are not publicized when promoted (3).

Promotions, whether in routine or exceptional circumstances, are irregularly published. For example, the graduating officers from the military academy who are promoted to the rank of Second Lieutenant, have their names announced in a public ceremony that is aired on TV (1). However, the decree for promotion to the mentioned rank is rarely published (2). Senior ranking appointments, such as military council members, by default promotion, are announced and published media outlets (3). Exceptional promotions are rare when they occur they are published (4).

Staff promotions are conducted through formal processes. Personnel promotions are regulated by legal documents. Military officers are promoted by the Defence Minister after the internal Commission. Each candidate is considered in accordance with exact criteria. The concept of career for military officers, confirmed by the order of the Defence minister, indicates that a military officer shall be promoted following his/her individual career plan. Two commissions shall evaluate an officer’s capabilities and qualities during the meetings. The minutes of this meeting are then sent to the Minister of Defence and the Lithuanian Armed Forces Commander who make the final decision [1]. There is no evidence that promotion boards have independent observers.

There is an exception to staff promotions regulated by Law on the Organisation of the National Defence System and Military Service. Article 54 indicates that under exceptional circumstances, a provisional military rank of a senior grade officer, which would be one rank higher than the one presently held by him, might be conferred. The exceptional circumstances are the following – 1) when a higher rank is necessary to ensure subordination in the unit; 2) when a military officer is appointed to a position in a foreign country and a higher rank is needed to hold office [1].

It is not possible to find summarised information on postings and promotion cycles, names, ranks, new posts or effective dates which are publicly declared. However, the Lithuanian Armed Forces release press articles on their website with regards to promotions, and there is media coverage as well [1,2,3]. They inform, although irregularly, the number of military servants getting promotions and the change of ranks they hold.

It is not possible to find summarised information on postings and promotion cycles, names, ranks, new posts or effective dates which are publicly declared. However, the Lithuanian Armed Forces release press articles on their website with regards to promotions, and there is media coverage as well [1,2,3]. They inform, although irregularly, the number of military servants getting promotions and the change of ranks they hold.

Promotional exercises are very subjective for senior officier, rank Major and above. There are no elements of race and religion involved. The general guidelines for the promotion are, firstly, that the officer must fulfill two basic requirements: years in service and report from superior. Secondly, that the officer will be interviewed for attendance at a one-year promotional course at the Defense College locally or abroad. The promotion is subject to an evaluation by the Services Promotion Board chaired by the Chief of Service. It is at this level that military politics play a role and lobbying also occurs. Qualified and competent officers may not be promoted. [1] [2]

The officer refused promotion may be offered another, less important administrative post rather than a command post. But the decision rests solely on the discretion of the Chief of Service. In exceptional cases, promotion can also be awarded for bravery or if an international recognition/award is received by an officer, for example for his/her involvement as consultant to international organisations like the United Nations. In several ocasions, officers were also promoted to a higher post after serving as aide-de-camp to Yang Dipertuan Agong or sultans. [1] [2]

There are no advertisements or circulars on promotional exercises. They are reliant on the discretion of the Head of department. According to Brigadier General Mohd Azmi, no circular or information is available for promotional exercises. A possible clear hint of promotion is when an officer is nominated to attend courses either at the Staff College (for Major) or at the Defence College (for Lieutenant Colonel and above). [1] All senior staff must attend those courses before being considered for promotion. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that the officer will be promoted after the attending the course. The Head of department has the prerogative to nominate and recommend the promotion of staff to the Armed Forces Council. [1] [2]

There are specific numbers of promotional exercises available to the staff concerned. The promotional exercises are subjected to post vacancies due to compulsory or early retirement, or unscheduled dismissals. [1] [2]

The LOPM, the government’s major programme of military reform that was adopted into law in 2015, contains provisions to improve the working environment and conditions for people serving in the armed forces. One media report suggested that the law provided a new framework for promotions within the army.¹ However, the fullest online version of the document available does not outline the criteria for promotion. It does say that it covers “grade-related evaluations”, providing no further details.² This suggests that a promotion framework does exist, but it is not made widely available.
Building on the LOPM, in May 2017, parliament approved a new general statute for the military that outlined clear criteria for promotions to various grades. For example, the statute stipulates that no person can rise to the level of General if they have not followed and completed a programme of higher military education, programmes focusing on the development of scientific and technical skills, and finally a postgraduate university degree.¹²
There are three categories of ranks within the Malian armed forces: Non-Commissioned ranks (Militaires de rang), Non-Commissioned Officers (Sous-Officiers) and Officers.¹³ Article 54 states that no person can become a non-commissioned career officer (sous-officier de carrière) unless they have completed 10 years of service, of which 5 years have been as a sous-officier.¹³ However, these additional conditions do not apply to non-commissioned officers in the gendarmerie. Such promotions are made by decree by the minister responsible for the armed forces, i.e. the President of the Republic. Article 55 indicates that the seniority of officers is determined by their previous activities. Finally, article 50 points out that nominations and promotions relating to general officers are made by decree by the Council of Ministers and by the President for all other officers.¹³
Furthermore, article 46 stipulates that career progression within the armed forces functions by being promoted from one grade to the grade immediately superior. The only exceptions to this rule are for promotions from:
– Corporal to Sergeant
– Chief Warrant Officer to Second Lieutenant
– Colonel to Brigadier.¹³
The introduction of this framework is a positive step for the country. Nevertheless, there are clear instances where promotions have been awarded for reasons other than military achievements and competency in recent years. In August 2013, shortly after the second round of the presidential election, the Council of Ministers promoted Captain Amadou Sanogo to a 4-star general without any clear process of approval or oversight. The nomination came in the wake of the 2012 military coup that Sanogo had himself orchestrated. The move angered human rights groups who alleged that Sanogo had a well-documented history of being responsible for “arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearances”.³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ Several officers who contested Sanogo’s appointment/promotion were arrested for their comments, indicating the state’s unwillingness to discuss promotion processes.⁷
Similarly, the double promotion of Ibrahim Dahirou Dembélé (see Q41 for more information) in February 2018 was also made in very opaque circumstances. Dembélé, who was previously Chief of Staff under Captain Sanogo’s junta in 2012, was promoted to Division General and to Inspector General of the Army. This was despite the fact that he had been on probation and awaiting trial since March 2014 in connection with the alleged abuses that took place on Sanogo’s watch.⁸ Dembélé currently stands accused of ‘passive complicity’ in the assassination in 2012 of 21 members of the red berets, a rival unit to that of Sanogo’s green berets. But Dembélé was appointed a mere 15 days after a court in Bamako had lifted his probation status.⁹ The assessor found no evidence to suggest that the promotion was awarded in respect of Dembélé’s achievement, but there are more convincing reasons that suggest it was a politically motivated promotion.¹⁰ ¹¹
According to one journalist, the hierarchy does not correspond to military competence and nine out of ten officers are sons of officers.¹⁴ A senior security governance professional told the assessor that the current system remains largely ‘dysfunctional’.¹⁵ The interviewee said that the recent updates to promotion criteria were an improvement, but “still fell short of what is needed”.¹⁵

The source said the government is yet to provide clear job descriptions and recruitment criteria, as well as deployment protocols.¹⁵ The interviewee noted that very few of the updated job descriptions and applications forms were used during the FAMa’s recruitment drive in 2018.¹⁵ According to the source, the government’s rationale for not using the new procedures was because the deteriorating security situation in the centre of the country was ‘too urgent’ and that the new forms/criteria will be used next time.¹⁵

Both the security governance expert and the defence attaché from a foreign embassy attested to fact that the promotions process is still riddled with corruption.¹⁵ ¹⁶ The defence attaché said that one FAMA soldier had told him that “if you don’t pay, you don’t advance even if you are good enough”.¹⁶ The source said that ability is still important, but paying remains a crucial, unofficial component.¹⁶

Article 51 of the general statute for the military (see Q42A for more details) stipulates that military appointments and promotions may, in exceptional cases, be made without conforming to the standard requirements. This provision exists to reward “remarkable deeds” and “outstanding service” without having to take into consideration the minimum period of service required to advance to the superior grade.[4]
However, the promotion of Ibrahim Dahirou Dembélé (see Q41 for more information) does not appear to have complied with these conditions. Dembélé was appointed a mere 15 days after a court in Bamako had lifted his probation status [1] in connection with a trial relating to the mass execution of members of a rival military division. The assessor found no evidence to suggest that the promotion was awarded in respect of Dembélé’s achievement, but there are more convincing reasons to suggest it was an overtly politically motivated promotion.[2,3]

High-level military appointments are commonly and widely reported in national media [2,3] The government typically publishes details of the military appointments it has made by decree in the Official Journal.[5] For example, in November 2016, the Official Journal recorded that the government had appointed:
– Army Commander Dassé Marico as the Deputy Director of Personnel Administration and Finance within the army’s commissariat.
– Airforce Lieutenant-Colonel Lassina Togola as the Deputy Chief of Staff for air force operations.
– Airforce Commander Yaya Traoré as a member of the Presidential Air Unit. Traoré left his role in the private staff of the president to take up the position.[5]
However, none of the decrees specified when each individual would assume his new position, making it very difficult to tell how much notice these announcements provided.[5] Hence, no evidence has been found that this information is being released before each actual appointment. Meanwhile, the official website of the FAMa does not post any information about regular promotions and posting cycles.[1]
Below these more influential appointments, there is much less information disclosed about the more routine promotions throughout the armed forces. That said, there are, sporadically, media articles focusing on individuals graduating from ‘l’Ecole militaire inter armées’. One such report from 2017 recorded that 36 people were graduating, having completed the standard training programme, while three others had finished a more specific course.[4]

High-level military appointments are commonly and widely reported in national media [2,3] The government typically publishes details of the military appointments it has made by decree in the Official Journal.[5] For example, in November 2016, the Official Journal recorded that the government had appointed:
– Army Commander Dassé Marico as the Deputy Director of Personnel Administration and Finance within the army’s commissariat.
– Airforce Lieutenant-Colonel Lassina Togola as the Deputy Chief of Staff for air force operations.
– Airforce Commander Yaya Traoré as a member of the Presidential Air Unit. Traoré left his role in the private staff of the president to take up the position.[5]
However, none of the decrees specified when each individual would assume his new position, making it very difficult to tell how much notice these announcements provided.[5] Hence, no evidence has been found that this information is being released before each actual appointment. Meanwhile, the official website of the FAMa does not post any information about regular promotions and posting cycles.[1]
Below these more influential appointments, there is much less information disclosed about the more routine promotions throughout the armed forces. That said, there are, sporadically, media articles focusing on individuals graduating from ‘l’Ecole militaire inter armées’. One such report from 2017 recorded that 36 people were graduating, having completed the standard training programme, while three others had finished a more specific course.[4]

Staff promotions are conferred on a rigorous hierarchical scale and generally through formal evaluation processes. In the case of promotions for the ranks of Second Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel, they are conferred by selection contest in addition to covering requirements such as service time; seniority in grade; good military and civil conduct; etc. [1]

Other degrees such as those of Colonel, General Brigadier, or Group, Brigade, or Wing and Division, will be conferred by the President of the Republic, taking into account merit, aptitude, and professional skills. [2] In the case of these latter positions, a Commission for the Evaluation of Higher Promotion is constituted, which integrates the files for the consideration of the President. Said Commission is made up of members who are within the chain of command (the Undersecretary of National Defence, the Chief Officer of the Secretariat, the Inspector and Comptroller of the Army and Air Force, the Chief of the General Staff of National Defence, the Commander of the Air Force, Administrative and Logistical Deputy Chief of the National Defence General Staff, and the Chief of the Human Resources Section of the National Defence General Staff). [3]

Mexican law allows the granting of a degree for reasons of merit in times of war for the Army, Air Force, [1] and Navy of Mexico. [2] It is the responsibility of the Executive Power to determine, through the military authorities, the procedure that must be followed for this type of promotion, without requiring the requirements for promotions in peacetime.

In this regard, the regulations do not indicate limitations for future promotions.

Information on promotions at SEDENA and SEMAR is made available to the public at least one week before the award ceremonies (there is one ceremony on 20 November of each year and more throughout the year), once the Senate ratifies them.

Official bulletins [1] [2] and journalistic reports [3] report the number of promotions and degrees, as well as the names of the personnel, however, the destinations are not disclosed.

In the catalog of Open Data of the Government of the Republic it is also possible to find information and numbers of promotions of many of the government’s other dependencies, including civil service counterparts within defence institutions. [4]

Information on promotions at SEDENA and SEMAR is made available to the public at least one week before the award ceremonies (there is one ceremony on 20 November of each year and more throughout the year), once the Senate ratifies them.

A request was made to the MoD for further insight into this issue, but no information was provided. The available evidence suggests personnel are promoted in line with the plan for promotion of military personnel proposed by the Head of the Army and adopted by the Ministry of Defence. [1] Individual promotions are initiated by army supervisors, but decisions are made by the Ministry [2][3] and they are frequently based on the political affiliation of individuals proposed for promotion. [4][5]

According to the MoD reviewer, the Law on the Armed Forces stipulates that military personnel are promoted in higher ranks in accordance with the provisions of this law and needs of the service. Needs of the service are determined by the Plan on thd promotion of military personnel which is adopted by the MoD, on the proposal of the CHOD. Moreover, the selection of professional military personnel for promotion is carried out by a Board established by the Minister of Defence, while the Ministry of Defence prescribes the methodology for conducting the procedure of regular promotion of professional military personnel and the method of selecting the person for promotion. The Constitution of Montenegro also stipulates that everyone has a right to legal remedy against the decision, which decides on his right or law-based interest. Based on this principle, judicial protection against decisions of the Council for Defence and Security and Minister of Defence regarding promotions of military personnel is provided through institutes of complaint such as the Board for Complaint, which is part of the Government of Montenegro and the judicial protection within the Administrative Court. [1][2][3]

Research undertaken did not identify any regulations that underpinned such exceptions in practice [1][2]. At the assessor’s request, the Ministry also provided regulations. Further, the registry of all legal procedures was checked, but no relevant regulation was located. Therefore, if a force permits any other means of awarding rank, there are no regulations that limit the possible circumstances or place requirements on further progression.

Little to no information is released about postings and the promotion cycle. [1][2]

According to the MoD reviewer, when it comes to the special promotions or promotion of the rank of a military person, the information is published regularly within the system. The official promotion ceremony is held at least once a year, usally at the celebration of the Armed Forces Day, when names of all promoted officers are called publicly. [3][4][5]

Little to no information is released about postings and the promotion cycle [1][2]. According to the MoD reviewer, official promotion ceremonies are held at least once a year [3][4][5].

The Regulations on General Discipline of the Royal Armed Forces (Règlement de discipline générale des forces armées royales) state the different distinctions and rewards military personnel can receive on the basis of their performances, but not the promotions available (1)(2). Therefore only elements pertaining to awards, and not promotions were found. No evidence was found of any formal processes, boards or oversight of the promotions process. In the absence of such a formal process, undue influence and inappropriate conduct in the promotions process may be widespread.

The Regulations on General Discipline of the Royal Armed Forces (Règlement de discipline générale des forces armées royales) state in article 62: « Exceptional awards: The King is the supreme chief of armed forces, as such he can promote any military man to the rank he wishes as a reward for exceptionally brave acts »(1).

No evidence of boards and oversight of the promotion process was found, which undermine its transparency and increases the risk of corruption.

In line with the powers granted to him by the Constitution, the King promotes officers regardless of any objective and meritocratic process, as well as in the absence of any external board (2).The Moroccan and foreign press reports (3), as well as official statements (4) illustrate the King’s power of promotion. There is therefore no limitation or regulation that limits the possible circumstances and replaces requirements on further progression.

No evidence was found in the local or foreign press that information is released about postings and promotion cycle (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9).

The press only refers to promotion of senior military personnel by the King, without mentioning the details of the promotion process, or the criteria on which they were promoted, as the article in Jeune Afrique shows. There is no systematic publication by the media of details regarding promotions (1).

There is a formal process indicating criteria for promotion [1]. The public are not able to access any information about the factors of the promotion process to determine whether the system is objective and based on merit. Certain promotions during military reshuffles under Senior General Min Aung Hlaing received media attention because of the unorthodox nature of the promotion [2,3]. However, due to a lack of transparency it is not clear whether such circumstances are common practice [4].

According to an interview with a retired official, there is a process of acting ranks in battle. However, this is not governed by formal regulations because the military is a systematic, well-trained organisation and so anyone can command in combat depending on rank with the command and control system [1]. There is no relevant information published on the websites of the Ministry of Defence or the Senior General’s Office, but some media articles have covered issues relevant to this subject [2].

No information is published about postings or promotions in the military or on the website of the Ministry of Defence. Further information could not be identified.

Since no information is released about postings or the promotion cycle, this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’.

Military personnel have a strict rotation policy where they must move to a new position every three years [1]. The Personnel Department of the Ministry of Defence is responsible for promoting military personnel and instigating the recruitment process by posting vacancies on the Ministry of Defence intranet (vacancies for more entry-level positions are publicly published online) [2]. The online postings include job descriptions and selection criteria [1]. The selection criteria for promotions consist of qualifications and training courses and interviewees stated that training courses were the way to get promoted [1,3]. After a vacancy is posted, a human resources officer will shortlist candidates based on qualifications and training [3]. The evaluation and testing stage then begins, whereby candidates undergo psychological, medical and fitness evaluations. Depending on the role, other content-related tests may be conducted (for example, tests on weapons if the vacancy is for a weapons specialist) [3]. There is no independent oversight. Appraisals are not published but it is public information and traceable. [4]

As a general rule, formal processes are the only way to be promoted. In practice, battlefield promotions are extremely rare [1]. If a position unexpectedly becomes vacant, efforts are made to fill the vacancy with someone who already holds the necessary rank [1]. One interviewee underwent a battlefield promotion from 1st Lieutenant to Captain during a mission, but this was a temporary promotion to respond to the needs of the mission, and the interviewee was reinstated as a 1st Lieutenant shortly afterwards [1].

Promotions are announced for all officers between OF-10 and OF-3 on the internal staff intranet and include name, rank, new position and effective date of promotion [1]. It is not possible to access comprehensive information on civil service personnel [2]. The score reflects the fact that promotions are not made public.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’, given that, with the exception of the appointments of general officers to key positions, which are published whenever new appointments or changes occur, no information is released about postings or promotion cycles.

Career progression and management in the NZDF are governed, or rather considered, by the application of a number of principles by the relevant Service Boards. These include the following: organisational primacy; valuing diversity, dynamism, transparency, merit, partnership, choice, and individual responsibility [1]. Career management is primarily governed by organisational primacy but the NZDF recognises that this must be balanced by the needs of the member of the NZDF. For this reason, NZDF operational requirements, a member’s professional and personal career aspirations, and the need to provide a range of personal development, professional development, posting or employment opportunities for professional consolidation and variety (where possible) are all central in career management decisions [2]. Promotion to senior ranks in the NZDF is judged to be scrutinised by independent personnel. For example, promotion to senior ranks for tri-service posts requires the holding Senior Appointment Boards, the membership of which always includes the CDF (as Chair), three Service Chiefs, the VCDF, Commander Joint Forces NZ, Chief People Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and any other member appointed by the CDF [3]. According to DFO 4, the composition of Officer Promotion Boards is determined by the single Service Chiefs of Staff, and any Officer Promotion Boards considering a promotion to substantive Colonel (Equivalent) and above must include the Chief People Officer, who is to be a non-voting member as the CDF representative on the Board unless otherwise determined by the Service Chief [4]. Similarly, DFO 3, Part 11, states that the Directorate of Career and Talent Management must sit on the board as the representative of CDF when considering promotion of officers to substantive Colonel (Equivalent) and above [5]. Independence in this context is understood as being independent from the immediate chain of command and not from the NZDF as a whole. Promotion Boards and Appointment Boards are also required to be diversified on a gender basis.

The two documents pertaining to promotions (DFO 4, Chapter 8, and DFO 3, Part 11) contain no mention of battlefield promotions. Acting rank is possible but is limited to one rank above his or her substantive rank. The lowest acting rank is Captain, and in all cases, acting rank carries no specific entitlement to extra remuneration and is to be relinquished when the officer is no longer holding the position for which it was required, or, as directed by the Chiefs of Service [1]. DFO 4 provides further clarification on acting rank by stating that is to be given when the officer requires it for command or military status (e.g. disciplinary reasons) [2]. The number of senior ranks within the NZDF (Lieutenant-Colonels, Colonels, and Brigadier equivalents) is strictly controlled, as are their ratios of 2:2:1 split between the Army, Air Force, and Navy respectively. This ensures that the organisation does not become ‘top-heavy’ and that the NZDF is able to meet operational requirements and international interoperability. There are some exceptions to these numbers, but they relate to the Director of Logistic Development, and operational peacekeeping posts and Defence Staff in London, Washington, and Canberra, all of which must pass the same stringent promotion process [3].

There is not enough information to score this indicator. Under the 7 August 2020 reprint of the Defence Act 1990, Section 32(2) states all such appointments, commissions and other acts to promulgated by Defence Force Orders [1].

The last promulgation of officer promotions in the New Zealand Gazette was on 7 August 1997. Officer promotions are now published and promulgated through single service orders (NZDF) [2]. However, as it has not been possible to access information.

Officer Promotion Boards meet at least once a year, and promotions are announced internally via Defence Force Orders [1, 2].

The security sector human resources management has formal processes in place that are characterised by clearly defined personnel regulations, a competitive and transparent recruitment system, merit-based promotion and in-house training (1,2). There are two methods of promotion: by level and by grade. Level promotion within the same grade is automatic and linked to the length of service within a level and “good” performance. Grade promotion is from one grade to another within a corps, subject to good performance and the specified distribution of personnel by corps and by grade. Grade promotion is also conditional upon obtaining diplomas and accumulating a number of years of service. Within the officer corps, promotion requires studying at certain schools such as the War School (colonel) (3). The assessor found no evidence for whether personnel promotions followed formal appraisal processes.

The security sector human resources management is characterised by clear personnel regulations and a merit-based promotion system (1,2). At every stage, there is oversight bodies that manage promotions. However, the decisions of these oversight bodies cannot be challenged because there is no external accountability (3). Also, there is no evidence of whether or not these regulations are always followed in practice.

Personnel regulations, career management, and training are all governed by clear regulatory texts (1,2), but they are not available to public (3).

Personnel regulations, career management, and training are all governed by clear regulatory texts (1,2), but they are not available to public (3).

Promotions are also subject to the policy of Federal Character Principle (made based on political or ethnic considerations). Political influence does play a role and there are allegations of bias on ethnic grounds concerning some appointments (1). The Army Council recommends officers for promotion under Sections 10 (1) and 11(b) of the Armed Forces Act CAP A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (2).

Promotions are political at colonel-level and above and are completely within the purview of the Chief of Army Staff (COAS). An officer must spend a given amount of time in each grade before advancement to the next. Achievement in service may also determine the pace of promotion in the army (1). An officer who has made an indelible mark in the service through personal and team assignments may be considered for promotion. There is a subjective element in some aspects of the criteria for promotion and officers with political connections are promoted quickly (2).

Name, rank, new post and effective date are publicly declared at least one month ahead, but not for all officers above OF-4. Equivalent information is available on request for civil service counterparts. Details of postings are made at least annually (1). Quite detailed circulars on new postings are made internally, but that information is not made public, or at least not in such explicit detail.

Name, rank, new post and effective date are publicly declared at least one month ahead, but not for all officers above OF-4. Equivalent information is available on request for civil service counterparts. Details of postings are made at least annually (1). Quite detailed circulars on new postings are made internally, but that information is not made public, or at least not in such explicit detail.

The process of promotion takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Service in the Army [1] and a special Rulebook on Promotion [2], adopted by the Minister of Defence. The formal criteria for promotion to a higher rank are underlined in Articles 58 – 72 in the Law [1]. They are based on prior official assessments, years of service in the lower rank, years of education in the country and abroad, additional specialisation and expertise, awards, plaques, badges, decorations etc. The selection process for promotion to a higher rank is coordinated by promotional boards, serving as advisory committees, which are determined by the Chief of General Staff of the Army. These boards work independently from the command chain in the Army and are composed of five members of the rank to which the candidate is being promoted, The members span different military branches and services and are chosen on the basis of their professional and character traits [3].

The Law on Service in the Army outlines the procedure for promotion in exceptional circumstances, for instance during war (Article 68) [1]. The Rulebook on the Promotion of Military Officers during a State of War, adopted by the President of the North Macedonia and Supreme Commander of the Army, also regulates the procedures for promotion. Both the Law and the Rulebook are clear and they specify which exceptional circumstances are considered and determine the necessary requirements for promotion, including the candidate’s command capability, courage, military merit and demonstrated ability to perform duty to a higher rank [2].

Details of promotions, however, are regularly and publicly announced to the relevant unit in which the promotion is taking place [1]. As for promotions fo the highest ranks, these announcements are published in the Official Gazette of the North Macedonia [2]. Other promotions are also published on the websites of the Ministry of Defence and the Army of the North Macedonia [3].

The details of staff appointments are not publicly disclosed, because they represent classified information. Details of promotions, however, are regularly and publicly announced to the relevant unit in which the promotion is taking place [1]. As for promotions fo the highest ranks, these announcements are published in the Official Gazette of the North Macedonia [2]. Other promotions are also published on the websites of the Ministry of Defence and the Army of the North Macedonia [3].

Personnel promotions in the Norwegian Armed Forces are described in detail in the Employee Handbook for the Norwegian Armed Forces – Part B Management of Military Personnel [1]. There are two kinds of promotion: ordinary promotion and promotion through application. The first applies to military personnel with ranks up to OF-2 and OR-6 [2]. Ordinary promotion is based on seniority and relevant education. It is a direct promotion to a higher rank without application and without change to the held position. Inspectors General for the Army, Navy and Air Force are decision-making authorities. Promotion through application applies to military personnel with ranks OF-3 and OR-7 and above [2]. Personnel promotions through application are conducted by promotion boards (Forsvarsjefens råd) in accordance with the Act on Military Service in the Armed Forces and the Regulation on Service for Military and Civil Personnel in the Ministry of Defence and the Subordinate Agencies [3, 4].The Head of the Norwegian Armed Forces HR and the Conscription Centre appoint the promotion board which is composed of a chair, 3 representatives for the employer (suggested respectively by the Chief of the Norwegian Army, the Chief of the Royal Norwegian Navy and the Chief of the Royal Norwegian Air Force), and 3 representatives for the biggest employee unions [5]. All promotions are evaluated by an independent board [6].

The Instruction for Personnel Management in the Ministry of Defence and the Subordinate Agencies mentions that, in exceptional situations, ordinary promotion may be overruled – for instance if the personnel has special education and experience or shows extraordinary talent [1]. However, there are no further regulations that explicitly limit the circumstances or further progression.

For security reasons, detailed information about officers above OF-4 is not publicly available. The personnel register with full details is only available internally. The internal register is updated on a daily basis [1]. Information containing names and posts for civil service counterparts is available in the searchable departmental catalogue [2]. However, the formal appointment is made by the Government and information is published in summaries from weekly cabinet meetings where such decisions are made [3]. The practise in Norway is not to give an effective date, but use the formulation “from the date the ministry decides”. The Norwegian system does not cover all ranks above OF-4 (only OF-6 and above for military personnel) and does not include “effective date”, but otherwise normally fulfils the requirements set out in this question. Information about postings and promotion is also sometimes published in form of press releases. These press releases are detailed, but are mainly concerned with top positions [4, 5].

The publication of postings and promotions is regular (weekly) but, as noted in Q42C, for ranks/equivalent above OF-5/6, not OF-4. The information appears in a summary from a (weekly) cabinet meeting [1].

Although no information is available on the formal structures or rules in the defence and security sector regarding promotions, our sources indicate that there is a formal process in place, but this process is usually distorted by political and tribal influences (1), (2). The Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, contrasts Oman to GCC monarchies due to the fact Sultan Qaboos has largely excluded his family from office; however, there are indications that merchant classes linked to the country’s natural resources are granted influence by the sultan (3). The formal process behind personnel promotion is unknown to the public. Reports by Carnegie and Middle East Institute emphasize how governance in Oman rests in the hands of the sultan, making Sultan Qaboos the appointer and decider or at least approver of all promotions (3), (4). No information was found in reports or in media outlets concerning defence specifically which is exempt from transparency guidelines by the government (5), (6), (7).

No information is available on the formal processes of promotions; it is normal to find exceptions to awarding promotions to personnel either through Sultani Decree or commanders who have the authority to promote personnel (1), (2). No regulations on promotions are stated on the Ministry of Defence or Royal Armed Forces websites (3), (4). As discussed in sub-indicator 37A-C, there is no sensitivity regarding time limitations of high-ranking job positions to reduce corruption risk.

There is no available information on promotion cycles. There are; however, as stated in sub-indicator 37B, sometimes job postings on the Ministry of Defence website, under careers, with the job title but no details about the application process (1). No reference is made to application processes, or formal procedures around promotions (1). Media reports on promotions of personnel are announced in royal decrees, lacking in description of the successful candidates’ accolades or formal procedures around job selection (2). No job descriptions with essential criteria or detailed procedures including application processing time, decision-making standards, formal appraisals and independent oversight procedures are detailed on the Ministry of Defence, the MoD secretary-general, or the Royal Armed Forces websites (3), (4), (5), (6).

This indicator is marked Not Applicable because there is no available information on promotion cycles. There are; however, as stated in sub-indicator 37B, sometimes job postings on the Ministry of Defence website, under careers, with the job title but no details about the application process (1). No reference is made to application processes, or formal procedures around promotions (1). Media reports on promotions of personnel are announced in royal decrees, lacking in description of the successful candidates’ accolades or formal procedures around job selection (2). No job descriptions with essential criteria or detailed procedures including application processing time, decision-making standards, formal appraisals and independent oversight procedures are detailed on the Ministry of Defence, the MoD secretary-general, or the Royal Armed Forces websites (3), (4), (5), (6).

There are formal written processes and procedure for promotions. However, this process is undermined by the influence of the executive or through politically-driven motivations. Promotion is different from appointing new solders as mentioned in Q41(1), (2).

The incomplete legislative system of some security agencies has contributed to the widening of the discretion granted to the officials of those agencies, which may open the way for the existence of mediation, favouritism and nepotism in making decisions related to the transfer of employees and their promotion (3).

The Law on Security Personnel provides mechanisms for granting special promotions to members of the security forces (1). However, these rules are not regularly applied in practice.

There is a mechanism that may hinder the decision of the executive concerning awarding ranks and promotions, but it is not usually used (2). The majority of the high-rank promotions occur because of political motives which explains why such a mechanism is not used (3).

Information is sporadically available in newspapers and websites (1). Two years ago, there was the official journal where annual promotions were published. However, since 2016, it has not been published and is not available to the public (2), (3).

Information is sporadically available in newspapers and websites (1). Two years ago, there was the official journal where annual promotions were published. However, since 2016, it has not been published and is not available to the public (2), (3).

There is a formal process when conducing personnel promotions based on objective criteria such as competency and reputation in the service and schooling and a physical fitness test conducted by the AFP’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel [1, 2, 3]. Furthermore, officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain must be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, a constitutional body [4]. But cases of the bata-bata (patronage) system and other non-meritocratic factors undermine the conduct of formal appraisal [5].

Section 11 of Republic Act 291 stipulates that any commissioned officer of the Regular Force may be appointed and promoted to a temporary grade, except first lieutenant and brigadier general, not higher than one grade above his permanent grade, without vacating his permanent appointment [1] Provided: That at no time shall the number of offices under permanent or temporary appointment in any grade and in any promotion list exceed the number authorized for such grade and such promotion list [1]. Selection and promotion regulations are not clealry stipulated in the law only that it is prescribed by the Defence Secretary [1]. Like the regular promotion process, an AFP Temporary Promotion Board is task to evaluate and assess officers [2]. This Board is composed of the Deputy Chief of Staff, all members of the AFP Joint Staff, and the Adjutant General, and a non-voting member [2]. But cases of the bata-bata (patronage) system and other non-meritocratic factors undermine the conduct of formal appraisal [3].

Appointments and promotions of AFP officers above the rank of Colonel or Navy Captain as well as civil service counterparts are published but they include only the name and the position/rank [1, 2,3].

The Commission on Appointments publishes in its website postings and promotions annually, but only those of the armed forces officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain [1]. The major defence services, such as the Army, publishes press releases that contain a summary of promotions after the conferment ceremony [2].

Formal rules of appointment and promotion are regulated by the Act of 2003 on the Military Service of Professional Soldiers [1], in Articles 40-43. Articles 44-45 refer to dismissal and discharge rules. The detailed procedures, including relevant educational requirements and professional qualifications, are established by the Regulation of the Minister of 2010 on the Appointment to Military Ranks [2, 3]. Nominations, undertaken by the decision of the president are publicly announced [4]. The process is formal; however, there are no promotion boards. Appointments are made individually by authorised decision-makers (president, minister, relevant commander) [5].

Some exceptions allow soldiers to be promoted outside the regular process of promotion. Article 42c of the Act on Professional Military Service allows promotions due to heroic deeds in defined circumstances.
Article 42d of the Act on Professional Military Service allows appointment of soldiers to positions dedicated for higher ranks (no more than two levels). The power is discretionary.
The circumstances are not limited in the act [1].

The promotion process is not transparent. Because of the Act on Professional Military Service general annual limits of promotions are published [1]; however, there are no legal provisions nor practices to publish detailed information in advance.

The promotion process is not transparent. Because of the Act on Professional Military Service general annual limits of promotions are published [1]; however, there are no legal provisions nor practices to publish detailed information in advance.
Only limited number of information are published by media. [2,3]
There is a practice in the military units to inform on websites about some commander’s appointments or omissions [4]

Promotions are conducted according to objective criteria, including increments, time at a certain rank, appointment, distinction and exceptional [1]. Promotion boards do not exist as such. Instead, military personnel are evaluated based on a maximum two-person evaluation [1]. However, these evaluation procedures are limited in their influence on promotions [1]. These evaluation arrangements do not have independent (outside the branch) observers. Scrutiny is not performed on an individual basis: professional military associations criticise promotions on a procedural basis [2].

Special promotion conditions include minimum time in post, specific functions or assignments, participation in promotion courses with positive evaluation, competitive evaluation and other specific condition [1]. Military personnel may also be awarded rank under temporary and exceptional conditions [2].

All promotions above OF-1 rank are publicly declared under the law [1], and there is extensive evidence in the Official Gazette [2, 3, 4, 5]. Names, ranks, new posts and effective dates are publicly available. Equivalent information is available with regard to civil service [6, 7, 8].

Promotions are regularly published in the Official Gazette, as per Q42C. Postings are regulated for nominated ranks [1], and there is extensive evidence of publication [2]. Though varied, frequency is much higher than annual and is closer to monthly [2].

Promotions of personnel do not always follow a defined mechanism based on meritocracy. In the majority of cases, promotions are based on nepotism, and new patrimonialism where tribal connections play a major role. There is an internal formal mechanism for promotions within the armed forces. [1,2]

There are no regulations or restrictions that can limit promotion or progression. Decrees of promotions by the Emir or the Minister of Defence have supreme power and cannot be altered. [1,2]

There is a general lack of information about the defence sector, and there is no information released about postings and promotion cycles. [1] As previously established, there is not little information available publicly about the defence sector, and the MoD does not have an online presence. Some information about defence may be found through news reporting and media, however, most of this lacks detail. [2,3] There is no evidence of information about postings and promotion cycles in the Qatari media.

This indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as there is no information released about postings and promotion cycles. [1] As previously established, there is not little information available publicly about the defence sector, and the MoD does not have an online presence. Some information about defence may be found through news reporting and media, however, most of this lacks detail. [2,3] There is no evidence of information about postings and promotion cycles in the Qatari media.

Presidential Decree No. 1237 ‘On service-related matters’ describes the procedures for the promotion of personnel [1]. According to Article 11, Clause 13b, ‘promotional priority is given to those who have a recommendation from the assessment committee… and demonstrated a high level of professionalism and organisational skills’ [1]. The latter factor ‘professionalism’ is not clearly defined and leaves room for interpretation. The former factor ‘a recommendation’ includes a review of the candidate’s knowledge of relevant regulations, education level, discipline and performance, mobilisation and organisational skills, management experience, etc. [2]. The recommendation is written by a direct manager of the candidate.

According to Presidential Decree No. 1237, the promotion decision is made either by the head of the federal executive body (see Article 11, Clauses 2 and 3) or the serviceperson’s direct manager/senior (see Article 11, Clause 4) [1].

There have been occasional journalist reports of cases of unjustifiable promotions [3]. In addition, in 2018, there was a high-profile case in which the head of the MoD Audit Department for State Contracts was arrested for accepting a bribe of 11 million rubles to facilitate a promotion [4].

Article 22, Clauses 10-12 of Presidential Decree No. 1237 ‘On service-related matters’ [1] outlines the possible circumstances for accelerated promotions. In particular, Clause 10 permits accelerated promotion for excellence or special services, but it states that no rank may be assigned except for those in the soldier’s personnel scheduling chart. No further details about the nature or number of special services or merits are provided. Considering the fact that there have been a few cases of unjustifiable promotions [2,3], this vagueness of the regulation does not protect the promotion procedure from corruption schemes.

There is little information available about postings and no information about promotion cycles for military positions [1]. Those applying for contracted military service may send applications throughout the year. However, the results are not announced publicly [2].

This indicator is not applicable because there is no publicly available information about postings or the promotion cycle [1,2].

According to our sources, there is a committee of appointments and promotions, especially for low-ranking positions. However, this committee is influenced by tribal and political decisions. This committee meets more than once a year and decides on promotions, that are due at the time, and proposes new promotions. This committee consists of members from the financial department, head of units and commanders. Each agency has a committee (1), (2).

There are no regulations that limit the possible circumstances in which ranks can be awarded at the discretion of Saudi authorities. For example, according to our sources, promotion decisions come from the crown prince on hundreds of soldiers and officers, no power could enforce any requirement to stop these decisions made by MBS (1), (2).

The government does not publish criteria relating to promotion, demotion, or the assignment of its military personnel, nor does it publicly clarify information about the promotion cycle (1), (2). Authorities do release information about high-ranking military appointments, terminations, and reshuffles (3). This information is published in an ad hoc manner; however and does not reflect a formal process whereby the government systemically provides detailed information to the public.

The government does not publish criteria relating to promotion, demotion, or the assignment of its military personnel, nor does it publicly clarify information about the promotion cycle (1), (2). Authorities do release information about high-ranking military appointments, terminations, and reshuffles (3). This information is published in an ad hoc manner; however and does not reflect a formal process whereby the government systemically provides detailed information to the public.

Criteria for the promotion to high-ranking positions are detailly regulated with a law and a bylaw [1, 2]. Some of the following general conditions have to be fulfilled to promote officers and non-commissioned officers to higher ranks: appointment to the formation position which requires a higher rank, favourable evaluation in the promotion period and absence of criminal trial or a sentence for a criminal act in the preceding two years. Besides the general criteria, officers and non-commissioned officers have to spend a certain number of years in an immediately lower rank.
However, significant influence in making final decisions is in the hands of commanding officers. The “commanding officer in charge of promotions” usually decides on promotion, as requested by a subordinate officer. Hence, there is significant space for subjective decisions. The bylaw аlso allows for the opportunity to form advisory bodies that would determine a list of candidates [1].

The President of the Republic can temporarily promote a professional military officer into an immediately higher rank during his/her service in multinational operations or other activities abroad [1]. While on this duty, SAF member exercises all the rights of the temporarily assigned rank, whereas upon termination of duties in a multinational operation or activities abroad they exercise the rights of their rank according to the law.

Organisational units on the operational level of command, within General Staff of the SAF or Ministry of Defence determine candidate lists for the promotion of non-commissioned officers and officers, depending on the rank and position, whereas the Minister determines the total number of promotions per year. [1] Little to no information is published, so it remains unclear how is the personnel informed about the postings and promotion.

This indicator has been scored Not Applicable, as little to no information is published.

Personnel promotions are conducted through formal appraisal processes that consider various determinants such as educational credentials as well as job performance, which are reviewed for all personnel internally by promotion boards [1, 2], Members from the Services and MINDEF form the Secondary Promotion Council to deliberate on and recommend promotions to senior ranks (Lieutenant Colonel or Military Expert 6 and above) before submitting them to the Defence Minister [3]. Senior rank appointments require executive approval [4]. However, there is no evidence that independent observers are involved in these types of processes.

This indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as there are no documented or verifiable examples of alternative means of awarding rank, whether temporary or otherwise [1].

Public information on Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) promotions is typically limited to OF-6 and above officers who take up key appointments within their respective services [1]. The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) announces its promotion exercise for civilian and military personnel around late June every year, although it does not generally provide details of the promotees [2].

Promotions are well documented via internal bulletins/orders with pertinent details including rank and grade, and the effective date [1, 2]; while annual promotion exercises, as well as prominent promotees, are often highlighted in media [3].

According to interviewee 2, the promotions are done through what is termed the “meat market”. In essence, this means that officers are promoted internally one level above. This is performed by promotion boards and could largely be seen as outside the immediate chain of command. That said, promotion board recommendations are often overruled higher up, and they are vulnerable to undue political interference [1].

Exceptions do exist, such as in the Reserve Forces, whereby a “pool of specialists” programme exists that can ‘commission’ civilians to act as researchers or subject experts. These civilians are given a nominal rank related to their educational qualifications. The process is conducted within the Reserve Force Structures but is entirely unpublicised [1].

Promotions are published at least annually for senior officers. The information contains the officer’s force number, the arm of service, existing rank, new rank (if applicable), the post name, the date of application, and the name, rank, and the post-exit reason of why the officer is being replaced [1].

Promotions are published at least annually, but they are not published in advance of their effective date (or at least, not consistently) [1, 2].

Although military personnel appointments are regulated by the Military Personnel Act, it is questionable whether the promotion process is fair and objective. [1] Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Act states that an officer eligible for promotion should meet the selection criteria, including relevant competencies, work performance, personality and physical condition. Selection decisions are made by the Committee for Selection of Officers Eligible for Promotion, consisting of 3 or more members who are superiors or seniors of the candidate, without any external observer. The meeting of the committee is not disclosed. [2] One media report reveals that there are certain positions favourable to being promoted to General. Officers in 21 positions, including the head of the overseas dispatch unit of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of the Planning and Operation Division at the Army Logistics Command, were promoted faster than those in other positions. [3] In addition, there has been consistent criticism towards the intervention of the former and current administrations in military and defence personnel appointments, questioning the fairness of the appointment and promotion process. [4] [5] [6]

Article 30.2 of the Military Personnel Act states that “a person who has contributed to the State significantly in combat, during wartime or crisis, or in any time of national emergency equivalent thereto may be promoted by one rank, subject to deliberation by the committee for selection of officers eligible for promotion, regardless of the minimum service period for promotion. Provided that a person to be promoted to Major or higher rank shall have served two-thirds of the minimum service period for promotion.” [1]

As mentioned above (see Q41C), information on promotions of military personnel at middle and top management level is published by the Ministry of National Defence (MND) via the ministry’s website prior to the effective date twice a year. However, it only covers high-ranking positions such as general officers, with information on name, rank, new post, and effective date. [1] [2] Equivalent information is not available for civilian personnel and not updated on the MND website. [3]

Information on promotions of military personnel at middle and top management level is published by the Ministry of National Defence via the ministry’s website twice a year before their effective date. [1] [2]

The process of promotions is outlined in the SPLA Act of 2009, Section 29. The act spells out that promotions from a lower to a higher rank shall be based on availability of vacant positions, fulfilment of the required waiting time in rank, satisfactory performance reports, fulfilment of the required training, and fulfilment of “any other condition as shall be prescribed by the SPLA General Headquarters.” [1] The above implies that promotions based on merit exist in the army. The extent to which these regulations are followed is unclear.

The act also says there shall be promotion boards at most levels of the command: SPLA HQ, division, brigade, battalion and specialised units. [1] This indicates that the promotion boards are drawn from within the army, meaning they are not independent: “the Promotion Boards shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief of General Staff for Administration at the SPLA General Headquarters level, and by deputy commanders at the divisional, brigade and battalion levels.” [1]

Military personnel can be promoted based on outstanding battlefield performance. [1] Regulations for further progression in the ranks are also outlined in the act. These include availability of vacant positions, fulfilment of the required waiting time in rank, satisfactory performance reports, fulfilment of the required training, and fulfilment of any other condition as shall be prescribed by the army headquarters. [1] But the act does not specify, for instance, how long the waiting time in rank is for specific positions (e.g. from private all the way to Lt. General). For instance, in August 2018, President Kiir, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, promoted thousands of commissioned officers. The list included 120 officers promoted to the rank of Major General. [2] News coverage of the promotion exposed the fact that many had spent years without being promoted. Army spokesman Lul Ruai Kaong said some had not been promoted since 2005. [2]

With the exception of the Chief of Defence Staff, and the highest echelons of the army, whose promotion and appointment is publicly announced, [1] rarely does the army announce the promotion of its rank and file in the manner specified in this indicator. Although a mass promotion of officers was publicly announced in August 2018, [2] this is not a regular or even “normal” practice. Even then, details such as name, rank, effective date of promotion, and location of posting were not disclosed to the public when the mass promotion occurred. [2] The same applies to civilian employees in defence, whose promotion and appointments are not disclosed publicly.

Details about promotions are rarely published. Such details become available only when a new Chief of Defence Staff is appointed. [1] Judging from the media coverage, this seems to happen every three years. Even when such information becomes available, it applies only to the top-most echelon of the army: the Chief of Defence Staff and his 5 deputies. [2]

Article 88.2 of Law 39/2007 regulates promotions through four different methods: a) “elección” (nomination), for “the most capable and suited”; b) “clasificación” (ranking), through an evaluation process; c) “concurso o concurso-oposición” (examination), as per the grade in a selection process; and d) “antigüedad” (seniority), as per the hierarchy order. According to Art. 89, promotion to the ranks of all types of generals, colonel (NATO’s OF-5), suboficial mayor (OR-9) and cabo mayor (OR-5) is through nominations [1, 2]. These are the last ranks before shifting to the next category in the hierarchy (from troops to non-commissioned officers, from non-commissioned officers to officers, and from officers to generals), and represents a “filter” to facilitate or deny access to the following level [3].

Ministerial Order 55/2010 defines the Informe Personal de Calificación (qualification personal report) (IPEC) as “the objective assessment of predetermined concepts that allow appreciating the qualities, merits, aptitudes, competence and professional performance of the military” [4, 5]. However, this objectivity has been challenged both by the military [3], lawyers [6], and by certain political parties [7] (Amendments 1 and 28) because of different accusations of “discrimination”, “arbitrariness”, and/or “at the discretion” of the hierarchic superior. Firstly, because the nature of the concept measured (these are: personality, intellectual capacity, physical capacity, personal relationship, attitude while in service, organisation of work, task assignment, teamwork, attitude with the hierarchy, attitude with subordinates, decision and command, efficacy, efficiency, adaptation to a new situation, trustworthiness, prestige, capacity to assume higher responsibilities, and potential capabilities) [4]. The assessment may be affected not only by the personal and professional relationship with superiors, but also by the criteria used. For instance, both A and B marks may be used for a “very good” evaluation of an indicator, but the marks assigned may depend on the concept of excellence of the assessor, as there are no standard criteria [6]. Secondly, it could be affected by the composition of the qualification board, which includes the direct hierarchical superior (with a coordination role) and two other people that know the candidate [4]. These two other members may be of a higher rank or not, in the latter case sufficing a longer tenure [4]. However, in certain cases, the superior officer will be the unique evaluator. These cases include, among others, the chiefs of unit, centre or organism and the last ranks within in the hierarchy for non-commission officers (OR-9) or for troops (OR-5) who directly depend on the chief of the unit, centre, or organism [4]. Thirdly, because the maximum number of good marks is limited, meaning for example that if only 4 “A” are allowed in a given unit and 7 candidates deserve this qualification, only 4 will get it. This has been referred to as a “remotely-controlled qualification” [3]. Dissenting votes and pleas are all regulated and used.

The IPEC accounted for, until 2019, approximately 30% to 50% (depending on the mode of evaluation) of the total marks in an evaluation process, the “Group 1” where the IPEC is the only source for the components of personal and professional capacities and a factor considered in the component on professional prestige and capacity for leadership. This relevance meant that the IPEC determined the final outcome of an evaluation process. In fact, a 2010 study by the Ministry of Defence, a mathematical demonstration concluded that the process of election and classification adopted by the Ministry of Defence was, among other adjectives, “irrational” and “arbitrary and ineffective” as “in certain circumstances, perfectly plausible, not only does it not guarantee the choice of the most qualified for promotion or the most suitable for the performance of different destinations, it favors precisely the opposite” [8]. The study also reached the conclusion that “the modification, although minimal, of the qualifications of the different elements of evaluation of an individual, that could affect even a single element, can produce the effect of completely varying the result of the evaluation” [8].

In 2019, the Ministerial Order 13/2019 [9] and the Instruction 71/2019 [10] reduced the relevance of the IPEC in the evaluation process in favour of the military career, and since then the IPEC accounts for approximately 20% (form the previous 30% in the modality exam for public service) to 30% (from the previous 50% in the election modality). These changes have made the IPEC less determinant in the evaluation process, whilst it is still very relevant.

All promotions are regulated, as stated in 42A, in Article 88.2 of Law 39/2007 [1]. Professional merits, whether related or no to field operations, are all considered in the professional record of the candidates for promotion, and this is fully regulated.

In 2018, there were 4,910 people with rank OF-4 or higher [1]. Name, rank, post, date, and other data (e.g. unit of origin) are published at the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Defence (Boletín Oficial del Ministerio de Defensa (BOE)) for all positions above OF-5, and also for certain OF-5’s who command a unit, but not all OF-5 ranks. These details are also provided for many ranks below OF-4, not in the BOE, but the defence bulletins [2]. The Defence Bulletin is also an official journal that is accessible to the public. All generals are appointed by the Council of Ministers, and therefore they appear via Royal Decree in the BOE. Equivalent information is available on request for civil service members.

All calls for military openings are published on the Ministry of Defence website [1]. Postings and promotions are well regulated, published every year and announced well in advance [2].

Article 21 (1) of the Sudan Armed Forces Act, 2007, reads: ‘Promotions of officers shall be made by decision of the President of the Republic’ [1]. Given that the 2019 transitional government has replaced the President with the Sovereignty Council, it seems likely that, at least in the near future, the promotion of officers will be completed in a different way from what is described by the Armed Forces Act. The Act continues as follows: ‘(2) Promotions of other ranks shall be approved by the body specified by the regulations; (3) The regulations shall specify the terms of service, and the procedure of promotion, from one rank to another’ [1]. No further written descriptions of formal promotion processes within specific services, ministries or other units could be identified during a search of the Ministries of Defence and Interior websites [2,3].

There is Not Enough Information to score this indcator as no information could be found to support a reliable answer to this question. Given the pervasiveness of patronage systems, corruption and political and ethnic alliances throughout the various entities in Sudan’s formal and informal armed forces and civil service, it is likely that limits for exceptional promotions are entirely discretionary. Nevertheless, it is possible that limitations on exceptions COULD be included in the regulations that are referred to in the Armed Forces Act, but which could not be accessed for the purposes of this review.

No information could be found during a search of the websites of Sudan’s Ministry of Defence or Ministry of Interior [1,2], nor during an internet search for relevant reports or pronouncements. Given the informality of many of Sudan’s paramilitary forces (and proxy forces and formerly adversarial forces that recently participated in the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement process), it seems likely that postings, promotion cycles and process information might not exist for paramilitary forces or may only be notional rather than codified and documented within the organisation.

No information about postings or promotions could be found during a search of the websites of Sudan’s Ministry of Defence or Ministry of Interior [1,2], nor during an internet search for relevant reports or pronouncements. Therefore this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Promotions are regulated by a specific statute on promotions and elections which outlines formal appraisal processes [1]. Moreover, personnel cannot be promoted without passing certain courses that lead to award of a title or degree, as the promotion system is linked to requirements in education [2]. For an individual to be appointed or promoted, they must apply for a job that has been openly posted, with an objective job description which they can demonstrate that they meet. The SAF statute on promotions and elections does not however require service members from separate branches to sit on promotion boards as independent observers [1]. Individuals may appeal decisions where they claim to have been judged on wrong premises. As with all government agencies, the Swedish Armed Forces’ (SAF) decision to hire or promote an individual can be appealed to Kammarkollegiet [3], which forwards the errand to Administrative Services Agency [4].

All forms of internal progressions and promotions are formally regulated by the SAF’s statute on promotions and elections [1]. Chapter 9 of the statute enables battlefield promotions in times of war. Chapter 11 states that other forms of ‘exceptions’ (not defined) from the promotion procedures may be allowed if ‘motivated’ by the SAF Supreme Commander.

Information on military and civil personnel in the defence sector – including name, rank, posting, employment date – is included under the Public Access Law [1], which regulates public insight into the activities of the authorities, and can be accessed upon request.

Details of postings and promotions are published regularly within the system and in advance of their effective date, so that they can be appealed to Kammarkollegiet [1] and Administrative Services Agency [2].

Promotions within the administration follow the same rules across the different ministries. All employees are subject to yearly evaluations by their line managers (Article 15 BPV) [1]. For higher management positions there are criteria set by the Federal Personnel Office, distinct for different levels of management and publicized on the website of the office [2]. Within the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) for the rules of the most senior positions have been clarified, and the process has been rendered more transparent based on suggestions of the Control Committee of the National Council [3]. On the military side, less information is available. The Ordinance on the Organization of the Military (Armeeorganissation) (AO) requires the federal council to consider an appropriate representation of the militia as well as of the different linguistic groups of Switzerland for mid-level and high ranks (Article 4.3) [4]. More detailed conditions for promotions are given in the Ordinance on the Military Service (Verordnung über die Militärdienstpflicht) (VMDP). There is not an automatic expectation of promotion (Article 71.1 VMDP). There are some minimal criteria and necessary qualifications defined (e.g training, number of days) (Article 72 and Article 73 VMDP). Promotions are done on the basis of proposals by superiors. Promotions to the most senior ranks are decided by the Federal Council (VMDP, Article 39 and Annex 3). [5]. A study from outside the reporting period (2013) found that the lack of transparency in promotions as one of the primary reasons for a wave of resignations at the time [6]. There is no indication for the use of promotion boards, and they are not prescribed in the relevant laws and ordinance. There are four externally certified assessment centers for selection of career officers, career non-commissioned officers, General Staff officers and defence attachés (Assessment Center für angehende Berufsoffiziere, Assessment Center für angehende Berufsunteroffiziere, Assessment Center für angehende Generalstabsoffiziere, and Assessment Center für angehende Verteidigungsattachés) [7].

Ranks and special functions are defined in the Law on the Military and Military Administration (Militärgesetz) (MG). The law defines the existing ranks (Article 102). The definition of rules and necessary qualifications for promotions is delegated to the Federal Council by this law (Article 103). The administration in charge can request information on criminal, financial, military or police records and ask for a security clearance (Article 103). The Ordinance on the Organization of the Military (Armeeorganissation) (AO) requires the Federal Council to consider an appropriate representation of the militia as well as of the different linguistic groups of Switzerland for middle and top ranks (Article 4.3). The detailed conditions for promotions are given in the Ordinance on the Military Service (Verordnung über die Militärdienstpflicht) (VMDP). The ordinance lays out rules on age limits, permissible timing, the minimal number of service days and assigns the power to promote to specific actors within the administration (Article 71.2). The ordinance defines the preconditions for a promotion (Article 72) as well as the necessary qualifications (Article 73) and where the right to propose a promotion lies (Article 74). Promotions to the most senior ranks are through the Federal Council (Article 39 and Annex 3) [3]. There are few exceptions, in the VMDP, of how someone can obtain a rank without fulfilling the necessary criteria listed. Citizens can theoretically be assigned outside of the recruiting system to the Swiss Armed Forces based on their skills, but these cases are limited and they cannot be promoted (Article 5f). The Federal Council can confer a higher rank on a member of the armed forces temporarily if that member needs it while fulfilling a special task (e.g. service abroad) (Article 75). Member of the armed forces can exceptionally be put into functions one rank above or below their actual rank (Article 77). A member can be called to replace a higher ranking person and will be given that persons duties and privileges and granted an ad interim promotion. This does not guarantee a permanent promotion [3].

Promotions to the most senior ranks are decided by the Federal Council (VMDP, Article 39 and Annex 3) [1]. Promotions to Stabsadjutant (“Warrant Officer” or NATO designation OR-9) and higher are announced in a press release listing their name, new rank, effective date, place of residence and canton [2].

Promotions to the most senior ranks are decided by the Federal Council (VMDP, article 39 and Annex 3) [1]. Promotions to Stabsadjutant (“Warrant Officer” or NATO designation OR-9) and higher are announced in a press release listing their name, new rank, effective date, place of residence and canton. The announcements are made with immediate effect or a few days after the promotion [2]. For lower-ranking officers, promotions are typically announced at regional ceremonies [3, 4].

The mechanisms of the Personnel Review Board are required by law to be the formal process for personnel promotions in Taiwan’s armed forces and their aim is to ensure fair, unbiased, and independent selection [1, 2]. However, there is still space for manoeuvre when it comes to organising the Personnel Review Committee and in how higher ranking officers exercise their discretionary powers [1].

The discretionary powers of the Minister of National Defence play an essential role in maintain the integrity of the selection process in accordance with the “Act of Military Service for Officers and Non-commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces” [1. 2].

Exceptional promotions, such as acting rank or battlefield promotion, are not accounted for in the codes of “Enforcement Rules of Military Service for Officers and Non-commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces” for Taiwan’s military [3].

For acting ranks or battlefield promotion, there are clear limitation for the possible circumstances and specific requirements in the “Act of Assignment for Officers and Non-commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces” and “Enforcement Rules of Assignment for Officers and Non-commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces”.[4,5]

High-rank officers can determine the appointment for a vacanct position caused by injury, death, or other matters. For operation needs, non-commissioned officers can be promoted to second lieutenant [6,7]

There are no requirements to release information of postings and promotions for equivalences in Taiwan’s military to NATO’s OF-4 officers and officers above OF-4 to the public [1, 2].

Details of postings and promotions are published semi-annually within the system and in advance of their effective date.
According to the “Enforcement Rules of Commission for Officers and Non-commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces”, regular promotion happens every January and July. Personnel who are promoted to Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Major General, Lieutenant General, or General is the object of regular promotion. The personnel evaluation committee of regular promotion is held in June and December every year. The personnel order, which includes name, rank, profession, service, original position, new position and effective date, are issued to the officer, original unit, new unit, personnel department of headquarters, and financial section in advance of their effective date.[1,2,3,4]

There are formal appraisal processes that are followed when promotions are made. When involving senior ranks, the scrutiny is performed by the independent personnel outside the chain of command (vetting and interviews). After completion of the process, the findings and recommendations are forwarded to the higher levels for presidential action. [1] This is because, for these highest posts/ranks, the one who commissions them is the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. According to the National Service Act, the power to make an appointment of an officer on the permanent staff is vested in the President, who may, by order, delegate the power conferred upon him by this section to the Minister or any other person. For lower positions, academic qualifications, experience and training in the Military College are the main criteria for promotion. [2]

Under Section 37 of the National Defence Act 1966, promotion is determined by the National Defence Committee established under the Defence Force Regulations. However, all such promotiions must be approved by the President. [1] The late President John Magufuli made at least one promotion, seemingly driven by himself, not the National Defence Committee. [2] There are no specific exceptions outlined in the National Defence Act, however, so these alternative promotions are not properly regulated.

Equivalent information on name, rank, new post and effective date of appointment for officers and civil servants is publicly declared. [1] This information is published in the government gazette of official government press releases. Examples of such are the appointments of vehicle inspectors police whose list was published in Government gazette number 101, vol. 4 of January 24, 2020. Another example is the press release by the State house on the appointments and promotions of police officers on July 15, 2016. [2] [3]

Promotions are publicised through press releases, but it is not clear if this is all promotions or only some. [1] A review of all issues of the Government Gazette for 2018 revealed no announcements of military promotions. [2]

According to the Regulations of Ministry of Defence on Appointment and Promotion of Military Officers 1998 and the Ministerial Regulations on Criteria and Procedures for Military Appointment and Payment 2014, the appointment and promotion of military personnel must be conducted through formal appraisal processes and promotions boards [1,2]. However, according to the Regulations of Ministry of Defence on Appointment and Promotion of Military Officers 1998, Section 16, the appointment and promotion of military personnel, including those at middle- and top-management levels, is determined internally by the committee formulated within the MoD, which does not include any independent personnel at all [1].

Moreover, according to the Military Service Act 2008, Section 4(1), the MoD is allowed to temporarily appoint military personnel for a specific purpose. In this case, candidates without justifiable suitability can be appointed [3]. Moreover, there are also special promotion opportunities that exist outside of the formal appraisal processes, such as the special promotions of 5,327 commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers on November 21, 2018 and 195 commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers on January 15, 2020, respectively. These promotions were not clearly justified based on any objective criteria [4,5].

In addition to the appointment and promotion of military personnel, which is conducted through formal appraisal processes and promotions boards, the military permits other means of awarding ranks without any clear regulations that limit the possible circumstances or place requirements. Conventionally, the promotion of military officials is endorsed by the Prime Minister and King, but since 2018, the appointment of top generals has been determined through a vote by a committee composed of the three service commanders, the Thai armed forces commander and the Minister of Defence. Reshuffles and appointments at senior levels in the armed forces are also influenced by the new monarch [1]. This means that rank promotions are decided purely at the discretion of those in power. Furthermore, there is a problem of too many officials being promoted as generals in Thailand, which mainly results from the tradition of promoting officers before their retirement, the connections gained from military academies or a coup d’état and legacies from the anti-communist period [2,3].

Military personnel are allowed to request promotion twice a year (in April and October) every year [1]. The result of each appointment is publicly published through the Royal Gazette with the King’s order to promote military personnel. The information includes name, rank, new post and effective date [2,3,4].

Military personnel are allowed to request promotion twice a year (in April and October) every year [1]. The results are published afterwards through the Royal Gazette with the King’s order to promote military personnel [2,3,4]. There are also special promotion opportunities that exist outside of these processes, such as the special promotions of 5,327 commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers on November 21, 2018 and 195 commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers on January 15, 2020, respectively. However, these promotions were vaguely explained as being ‘for the purposes of the public interest’ [5,6].

According to our sources, the process is semi-formalised, where a committee of senior officers propose and suggest promotions to the MoD. These committees are formed by a ministerial decree. The process itself is vague but it entails that there are criteria for promotions and appointments, mainly being expertise and relevant education(1,2). The majority of promotions are decided by the Minister of Defence (3). Senior military positions are appointed by the President of the Republic (4). There are advisory committees, whose members are also appointed by the Minister of Defence (5). The promotion process seems to be discretionary even though promotions of officers and commissioned officers are published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia (article 40 law n° 67-20, dated 31 May 1967, on General status of the military). Beyond these legislative documents, there were no substantial media articles or civil society reports that looked into the issue in detail, especially at how well these laws are implemented (6).

For acts of war or acts of heroism carried out during defence or homeland security operations, appointments and promotions to the next highest rank may take place, notwithstanding any statutory provisions in this area and, where applicable, posthumously. However, non-commissioned officers and soldiers may receive a promotion of two ranks. For these exceptional advancements, the condition of aptitude of the candidate to assume the responsibilities related to the new grade must be taken into consideration. These regulations are vargue because they can be used and interpreted by by the senior commanders and do not specifiy such cases accuratly and clearly.
An exceptional gratification may be granted, in the form of promotion or the form of advancement of one or more steps or the form of a global bonus, the amount of which is fixed case by case, to members who have achieved, in an exceptional way, a working method that has led to an improvement in the quality of operational activities or administrative services ,or that has led to savings in costs, or has performed an act that has avoided the national army or the State of serious injury, or have distinguished themselves by a high degree of perfection in the performance of their duties. The appointment, or the promotion and the exceptional gratuity, per the conditions mentioned above, are granted to the military by the President of the Republic Supreme Chief of the Armed Forces (1,2,3).

Promotions of officers and commissioned officers are published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia (article 40 law n° 67-20, dated 31 May 1967, on General status of military) (1). Top management positions (which are of the discretion of the President of the Republic) are published in the form of Decrees which mention the grade, name, new position, and effective date (2). Such information on civil servants is also available.

According to our sources, major postings and promotions of senior positions are published regularly ( annually or less). (1)

Personnel promotions within the military up to the rank of colonel are conducted through formal appraisal processes in the chain of command and there is a promotion board for all personnel established in each service command (the Army, the Navy and the Air Force), headed by the Service Commander, the authority that conducts oversight of the promotion process. Interviewee 5 suggested that the personnel management department in each service command has sections in charge of the personnel policies of different branches (such as infantry, armour, artillery in the Army) and these sections are the primary units in charge of the personnel management of these branches in the military. According to him, the operations and services of these sections are transparent and accountable [1].

However, in terms of the promotions and appointments of senior-level personnel (colonels and generals), the Supreme Military Council is in charge and, according to Interviewee 6, this promotion process is becoming politicised under Erdogan’s Presidency [2]. Open-source research confirms these suggestions. For instance, the popular admiral Cihat Yayci, known for his hawkish views about the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Sea and his power struggle with Minister of Defence Hulusi Akar, was first demoted and then forced to resign without any clear explanation [3]. Additionally, in August 2020, after the meeting of the Supreme Military Council, led by Erdogan, 600 colonels were forced to retire, which some opposition media outlets believe is a part of purge of Kemalist and secular officers from the military and the military’s Islamisation [4].

Interviewees 3, 5 and 6 suggested that the promotion of an officer corps from the rank of lieutenant to colonel is merit-based, standardised and seen as a bureaucratic process shaped by Articles 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33 of Law No. 926 on the Turkish Armed Forces Personnel Management [1], internal regulations and personnel management needs [2,3,4]. So, up to the rank of colonel, there are no exceptions to the merit-based promotion system within the Turkish military.

However, given the civilian decision makers currently have the upper hand in the decisions of promotions of the generals at the Supreme Miliary Council since 2018, this increases the chances that decisions of the promotions of generals are political and could result in exceptions from standardised promotion practices. [2,3,4]

Generally in the third week of August, just two weeks after the Supreme Military Council convene for promotions, postings and promotions are published on the Official Gazette, including personnel’s full names, ranks, old posts, new posts and the date they will start working at the new post [1]. It should be noted that after the lists are published on the Official Gazette, the list becomes publicly available on online sources.

Details of postings and promotions are made public just after the Supreme Military Council meeting in the first week of August and published on the Offical Gazette in the third week of August. Interviewees 5 and 6 suggested that publishing the promotion list of the Turkish military on the Official Gazette is an established practice that has continued since the early 1970s. Both noted there has been no interruption since then [1,2].

Section 21 of the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) Act focuses on the Unit Promotions Board for lower ranks [1]. While Section 55 (1) provides the considerations for the promotion of an officer [2], where the board shall consider the following:
“a) the establishment of the Defence Forces; b) his or her length of service, and where applicable, age; c) training or courses or both, attended; d) appointment; e) results of such standard promotions examinations, practical and written, to be attended after such periods after successful completion of the requisite courses, as shall be prescribed by the Defence Forces Council; f) confidential reports by his or her commanding officer or head of department regarding-i) character; ii)discipline; and iii)performance; g) for professionals and quasi-professionals, qualifications and experience; and; h) such other conditions as the Defence Forces Council may prescribe.”
While these formal processes are in place, they have been abused many times, and they do not always follow the written processes.

Promotions in the UPDF is based on the UPDF Act 2005 [1], although most of the times, the criteria stipulated in the UPDF Act are not adhered to in many cases [2]. The president, as the commander-in-chief has the prerogative to promote any officer to any rank of his choice, as stipulated in Section 8 of the UPDF Act [3]. So there are exceptions to these rules where the commander in chief uses his authority to make promotions.

When the commander-in-chief makes promotions, details including name, rank, new post and effective date are listed [1, 2]. Most of the civilian appointments are made through public service, which clearly spells out the details of the job and reporting dates as well. The major difference between the civilian agencies and the UPDF is that UPDF promotions are made public while civilian agency promotions are notd public but confined with the ministries.

Every time there are new postings and promotions, these are communicated through an army spokesperson; it is then passed to all the major media houses [1, 2]. At times the press gets this news through their own sources [3, 4, 5].

It is the minister of defence who awards military ranks (maximum colonel) except for the higher ranks; single service chiefs and the deputy chief of defence award ranks up to the level of major [1, 2]. Higher ranks, major-general and above [3], are awarded by the president following the minister;s proposal [1, 4]. Officers are appointed to military positions, except for those appointed by the president [5, 6, 7, 8], by the minister of defence, chief of the general staff, Operational Command and Single Service Command [9, 2]. Moreover, there are promotion boards: the MoD High Appraisal Commission for the military position of brigade commander and higher and operational command (OC West, OC East, OC North and OC South) Appraisal Commissions, unit Appraisal Commissions etc. for positions of deputy brigade commanders and lower levels [9, 2]. At the same time, the Appraisal Commissions have only advisory powers and do not seem to have a major influence on the promotion process [9,10]; corresponding commanders seem to hold the de-facto appointment powers [11].
An interviewee from the MoD stated that decisions on the promotion of high-ranking officers are made by the Presidential Administration while the MoD and the GS only have a formal influence on the decision-making [12]. Moreover, in practice, the process of promoting the highest military ranks (major general and higher) is not working as formally stated. The final decision on the officers who should be promoted to the highest military ranks is not in the hands of the MoD or the GS. The Presidential Administration has the right to coordinate not only the formal preparation of the draft of Presidential Orders but also change candidate names on the List of Officers Nominated to Highest Military Ranks signed by the minister and the chief of general staff. Formal criteria of this coordination do not exist, but this is a key part of the military promotion process. The list should be reconciled by the secretary of the presidential administration. The MoD/GS career management bodies’ main bureaucratic work starts only after this reconciliation is finalised, and not before as it should be.
So there is a formal appraisal process and there is no evidence it was not followed. At the same time, there are promotion boards for all officers in place except for the higher military command (major-general and higher). Additionally, the existing mechanism doesn`t provide any kind of independent scrutiny at all.

There are two types of acting positions in the AFU: “temporarily in charge…” (interim) or “admitted to perform…” [1]. In both cases, acting commanders perform commanders’ functions, but in the second case, they are also provided with salaries of the commander they replace. Individuals for both “temporarily in charge…” and “admitted to perform…” are appointed by the corresponding commander without particular restrictions [1]. However, such appointments are done considering an individual’s military specialization code [1].

The MoD does not publish any information on awarding ranks. The President of Ukraine has the power to award high ranking positions following the minister’s proposal [1, 2] and the corresponding decrees are made public on the official website of the president [3]. The MoD also does not publish information on military appointments (although it publishes information on civil appointments [4]). This information, however, can be found in the media [5]. Supreme command appointments which the president makes, are published regularly and include name, rank and position [6, 7, 8, 9].

The MoD does not publish any information on awarding ranks, as such this indicator is scored Not Applicable. The President of Ukraine has the power to award high ranking positions following the minister’s proposal [1, 2] and the corresponding decrees are made public on the official website of the president [3]. The MoD also does not publish information on military appointments (although it publishes information on civil appointments [4]). This information, however, can be found in the media [5]. Supreme command appointments which the president makes, are published regularly and include name, rank and position [6, 7, 8, 9].

Research has revealed that the UAE has a formal process for promoting military personnel. Federal Law No. 6 of 2004, namely articles 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19, stipulates the mechanism for selection, promotion, and movement of military personnel within the defence sector. Articles 13 and 14 of the same law call for the establishment of an ‘officers committee’, which is tasked with the Human Resources management of military officers. According to Article 12, this officers committee should prepare an annual confidential report assessing the abilities and achievements of military personnel with ranks up to brigadier general (1), relying on personnel’s chain of command. Even though the law describes the mechanism for the promotion of officers, it remains unclear whether these promotions follow a meritocratic process or whether military personnel are objectively promoted. In addition to that, the fact that nepotism and favouritism are common in the UAE, as established in Q41A, is indicative of there being undue influence in the promotion process (1), (2), (3). The majority of senior position holders in the defence sector are either royalty or are associated with the ruling families and tribes in the country. These processes are likely undermined by undue influence or inappropriate conduct (4), (5).

Federal Law No. 6 of 2004, as previously explained, places the responsibility of promotions in the hands of an ‘officers committee’, and explains that such promotions shall be made based on awarding ranks (1). Military personnel are promoted to higher-level ranks, based on the recommendations by the ‘officers committee’ and decisions must be approved by senior management such as ministers of chiefs of staff. As for promotions for the highest military positions, such as brigadier and higher, these should be done through a federal decree. Since the UAE is mainly ruled by the most powerful families, who remain in control of decision making according to the constitution, promotion decisions made by the Emirati rulers are not contestable (2).

There is little information released about postings and promotion cycles within the armed forces in the UAE. Information is not available on the official websites of either the ministry of defence or the UAE government portal. The only information available is related to employment laws and regulations, which apply to employees of the public sector, however, without specific reference to military personnel. However, the existence of Law No. 6 of 2004 demonstrates that there is little information available about promotion mechanisms but that law, as well as very few promotion announcements, are also only available via media outlets and not on the official webpages of the government (1), (2), (3), (4).

There is little information released about postings and promotion cycles within the armed forces in the UAE. Information is not available on the official websites of either the ministry of defence or the UAE government portal. The only information available is related to employment laws and regulations, which apply to employees of the public sector, however, without specific reference to military personnel. However, the existence of Law No. 6 of 2004 demonstrates that there is little information available about promotion mechanisms but that law, as well as very few promotion announcements, are also only available via media outlets and not on the official webpages of the government (1), (2), (3), (4).

Personnel promotions are conducted through formal appraisal processes and promotions boards for all personnel, and rank promotion is clearly defined [1]. Promotions to senior ranks are open to scrutiny by independent personnel that are outside the chain of command. Service members from separate branches sit on the boards as independent observers [2]. Civilian appointments and promotions are based on fair and open competition and regulated by law. The Constitutional Governance and Reform Act (CGRA) 2010 [3] requires that appointments to the civil service “must be on merit on the basis of fair and open competition”. The Act also mandates the creation of a Civil Service Commission to oversee the civil service [4].

Promotion Selection Boards will consider, very exceptionally, any Captain/Colonel, Commander/Lieutenant Colonel, Lieutenant Commander/Major or Lieutenant/Captain who, although above or below the zone, is recommended by the Commanding Officer as being especially worthy of out of zone promotion.

A ‘Special’ OJAR is to be raised for officers so recommended, and supported by the appropriate intermediate authorities. The completed OJAR is to be forwarded to the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Personnel)/Naval Secretary (ACNS(Pers)/NavSec), who will instruct the Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Promotions (DACOS (Prom)) accordingly. If the application is successful, the officer will be placed before the next relevant annual Promotion Board and will compete against the other candidates presented to the Board. Should the officer be selected, then the promotion will be confirmed at the Common Promotion Date (CPD), provided the officer meets the required criteria at Para 6622. Navy Board Members who identify individuals with exceptional talent who are in zone for promotion may advise the ACNS(Pers)/NavSec who will instruct the DACOS (Prom) to pass these individuals directly to the Final Selection Board [1].

The list of senior military personnel is publicly available and it includes name, rank, job title as well as other details (not relevant for this indicator) [1, 2]. It does not include the effective date for the promotion. It is not known if equivalent information is available for civil service counterparts.

Research did not identify any centralised portal/database where posted promotions would be regularly published. Promotions are occasionally reported in the news section of the The British Army, as well as government websites [1, 2]. However, even if promotions are not published per se, updated comprehensive data on the structure of the forces is available and updated annually [3].

The General Military Law outlines the requirements necessary for certain promotions, such as time in previous post [1,2]. If the promotion is competitive, selection boards are convened. The selection board consists of five or more officers from the same armed force as the position in question. There is no provision made for external contributions either from other armed services or independent scrutiny [3]. As mentioned in 41A, there is a statutory ‘up or out’ requirement throughout the military, as set by the 1980 Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) [4]. Reforms to the military personnel promotion are frequently discussed, with a proposal to remove photos from promotion selection boards recently raised by former Secretary Esper to combat racism and diversity issues [5,6].

With regard to exceptions to promotions, there are two considerations. First, the U.S. Army authorises battlefield promotions in designated combat areas for sergeants and below [1]. This is a practice that was discontinued after the Vietnam War but reinstated in 2009. The Army, for example, designates a small number of battlefield promotions each quarter and notices of these are usually published on its website [2,3]. The second consideration for exceptions to the promotion system is via a waiver to the U.S. Code; the waiver is granted on a case-by-case basis for individual officers and is granted by the Secretary of Defense [4]. There are no specific restrictions provided that limit the circumstances of the waiver.

In the case of the Navy, promotions to grade of Captain, Commander, Lieutenant Commander, Lieutenant and Chief Warrant Officers are published. These publications include the individuals’ names, effective date of promotion and new rank. It is not clear whether the existing rank is published [1]. The Army does not have a clear website with the promotion details however, media outlets such as MilitaryTimes release the official promotions list on a monthly basis. This includes the name of the personnel, effective date of promotion and new rank [2,3]. Similarly, the Air Force release lists disaggregated by new rank, with the full name of the individual and effective date [4]. The DoD does not appear to publish details of civilian promotions.

In the case of the Army, the portal ‘My Board File’ is updated on a weekly basis and provides information 60 days in advance of a promotion board convening. This is not accessible to the public [1]. A list of board schedules is published, however, only retrospective schedules are made publicly available [2,3].

The Organic Law of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (LOFANB) establishes the hierarchies and different evaluation boards for the processes of promotion. The regulations of the different evaluation boards are available alongside forms the with evaluation criteria and schedules [1, 2]. Despite the existence of formal promotion processes, irregularities in promotions have recently been reported; some of these irregularities are visible in promotions to ranks that do not correspond to the order, or promotions that have been given in return for officers’ loyalty [3]. The use of high ranks to reward loyalty to the regime is evidenced by mass promotions and the number of officers occupying top ranks. In 2018, Maduro promoted 16,900 military personnel and it is currently estimated that the FANB has 2,000 generals [4]. Also, in 2018, members of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) were forced to sign a letter swearing loyalty to the Maduro government; this letter has since become a requirement for promotion and other procedures [5].

The LOFANB considers posthumous promotion and promotion by vacancy to be exceptional cases, both of which are regulated [1]. In the event of promotion to a vacant post, the rules governing such cases provide that a given period of time must pass before certain posts may be considered vacant, and that the general commander of the component in question must apply to Permanent Evaluation Board (JUPE) for the personal history of the candidate to confirm that there is no irregularity and that the post may be exclusively conferred to them [2].

Although these exceptions are regulated, complaints of irregularities in promotions registered by experts on the military sector indicate that politicisation of the FANB has facilitated the granting of promotions in exchange for political loyalty [3]. There have not only been irregularities that contravene LOFANB stipulations for exceptional cases of promotion, but also also cases in which individuals are promoted by presidential order without the merit-based processes for officials who hold positions by popular election, constituting violations of articles 328, 330, and 331 of the constitution [4].

Resolutions announcing promotions are publicly published annually. However, these resolutions only publish the names, positions and credentials of officers and do not specify any other details on the hiring process or the new assigned post or rank [1].

Although constituent parts of the FANB publish information about promotion schedules, this information is also limited and as a result can only be undersood by officers involved in the process of obtaining promotions [2].

Resolutions announcing promotions are published annually [1], but this information is limited. Although constituent parts of the FANB publish information about promotion schedules, this information is also limited and as a result can only be undersood by officers involved in the process of obtaining promotions [2].

The chain of command in the Zimbabwe Defence Forces has a huge say in the promotion of middle-ranking officers in the military. While the procedure outlined in the Defence Act states that the process ought to be based on merit, the process relies on the discretion of the command, they make recommendations to the minister of defence, who then consults with the president before the president makes a promotion [1]. There is no route for a promotion that excludes the command structure. There have been reports of political motivation in the promotion of military and intelligence officials [2, 3].

The Defence Act gives the president the power to temporarily appoint an individual to any higher rank, with no limitations [1]. The same provisions give the minister of defence the power to temporarily promote an individual to the rank of major in the Zimbabwe National Army and squadron leader in the Airforce of Zimbabwe. The commander of the Zimbabwe National Army may appoint someone temporarily to the rank of captain, and in the Air Force of Zimbabwe, the air marshal may appoint someone temporarily to the rank of flight lieutenant [1]. There are no special circumstances outlined for these temporary appointments. In the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), the most senior ranked operative in the branch assumes office on an interim basis once a vacancy arises until a permanent appointment is made [2].

The information pertaining to promotions of military personnel is given to members of the press in full on the day of the promotion, including the number of individuals promoted, their names, ranks and dates of their promotion [1, 2]. There is no equivalent information available for civil service counterparts.

Information regarding the promotion of military personnel is announced soon after the promotions are made, and they are usually made with immediate effect [1]. There is no provision in the Defence Act outlining the frequency; however, the practice has been that the information is released forthwith [2, 3].

Country Sort by Country 42a. Formal process Sort By Subindicator 42b. Exceptions Sort By Subindicator 42c. Comprehensiveness Sort By Subindicator 42d. Frequency Sort By Subindicator
Albania 75 / 100 NA 0 / 100 NA
Algeria 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Angola 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Argentina 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Armenia 75 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Australia 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Azerbaijan 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Bahrain 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Bangladesh 25 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Belgium 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Bosnia and Herzegovina 75 / 100 NA 0 / 100 NA
Botswana 50 / 100 NEI 0 / 100 0 / 100
Brazil 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Burkina Faso 25 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Cameroon 25 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Canada 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Chile 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 NA
China 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Colombia 75 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 100 / 100
Denmark 75 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Egypt 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Estonia 25 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Finland 75 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
France 50 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Germany 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Ghana 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Greece 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Hungary 25 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100 100 / 100
India 50 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Indonesia 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Iran 25 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Iraq 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Israel 75 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Italy 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Japan 50 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Jordan 50 / 100 0 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Kenya 75 / 100 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Kosovo 75 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Kuwait 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 75 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Lebanon 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Lithuania 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Malaysia 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Mali 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Mexico 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Montenegro 25 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Myanmar 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Netherlands 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 NA
New Zealand 100 / 100 100 / 100 NEI 100 / 100
Niger 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 25 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
North Macedonia 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Norway 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100
Oman 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Palestine 25 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Philippines 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Poland 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Portugal 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Qatar 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Russia 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Saudi Arabia 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Serbia 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Singapore 75 / 100 NA 50 / 100 100 / 100
South Africa 25 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
South Korea 25 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
South Sudan 50 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Spain 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Sudan 0 / 100 NEI 0 / 100 NA
Sweden 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Switzerland 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Taiwan 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 100 / 100
Tanzania 75 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
Thailand 25 / 100 0 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Tunisia 25 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Turkey 50 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Uganda 75 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Ukraine 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 NA
United Arab Emirates 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
United Kingdom 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100
United States 75 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Venezuela 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Zimbabwe 0 / 100 0 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100

With thanks for support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2022