This is the fourth in a series of five blogs introducing the five major corruption risk areas in the defence and security sectors leading up to the release of Transparency International Defence and Security Programme’s new Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index on 29 January. The index will provide a detailed analysis of the corruption risks faced by 82 countries around the world. The information will also highlight good practice examples that can be adopted to mitigate the risk of corruption.

The risk of defence personnel carrying out corrupt acts is important. Armed forces exist to protect a country’s citizens. Corruption among personnel breaks a bond of trust between citizens and the military. It harms soldiers, sailors, and airmen too, and can cause divisions in the ranks. Troops  who can afford to pay bribes to progress in their career might gain rewards over those who resist the temptation to be corrupt.

So what forms of corruption may occur in the military, and what can be done about it?

Around the world militaries have their own processes of appointment and promotion. Within military recruitment, military conscription is an area in defence that is particularly vulnerable. Personnel may attempt to illicitly gain more beneficial postings, or may bribe military or medical officials to avoid conscription altogether.  In Azerbaijan, for example, it has been reported that conscripts’ families have been found to bribe officials so that their relatives avoid less dangerous postings. To avoid corruption in recruitment, formal processes of appointment and promotion should be established that prioritises troops’ ability to do the job.

The defence sector is characterised by areas that are particularly sensitive, such as procurement and budget control, where corruption may be lucrative. It is important that personnel holding sensitive positions in these areas are given special attention: that they are vetted and subject to on-going oversight. Personnel must also feel free to blow the whistle and report impropriety among their colleagues – without fearing for their safety. Yet according to General Vijay Kumar Singh, former Chief of the Army Staff in India, “if someone is stepping out of line, he or she must be dealt with ruthlessly. However, in India, we have a tendency to shoot the whistle-blower instead.”

Payroll in the military is a further potential source of corruption. Delays in payment for troops, unjust deductions in pay, and discretionary bonuses – all may suggest impropriety that impoverishes personnel and may stimulate further corruption when they seek to make up the money. Ghost soldiers—fictitious personnel whose ‘salaries’ are illicitly pocketed—are a common source of corruption. Media reports suggest ghost soldiers have been found in Uganda, for example, where dishonesty over soldiers’ lives lost in Somalian campaigns may mean that corrupt officials ‘smile all the way to the bank’. To avoid corruption in payroll, systems should be robust – preferably automated, with a clear split between the chain of command and the chain of payment.

On top of these areas, corruption among personnel poses a general risk. Troops have authority – and where there is authority, there is a risk of it being misused. Personnel may demand facilitation payments at security check-points, and earn protection rents from intimidated citizens. Though individual bribes may not pay much, they may collate into a handsome stream of revenue. And to a poor family, the effect of a single bribe may be devastating. Read more.

Read the full blog 'Probity among personnel: Halting corruption in the ranks' at Reuters TrustLaw.

Learn more about our Governments Defence Anti-Corruption Index, to be launched on 29 January 2013.

Read more about Our Work and Focus Areas.

Read other blogs we've written.