An unsavoury taboo was broken last Thursday when the government for the first time ever put its defence budget proposals for 2006-07 before a parliamentary body, the Senate Standing Committee on Defence and Defence Production, which, of course, includes members from the Opposition parties.
The Defence Secretary, Lieutenant General Tariq Waseem Ghazi (Retd) gave a detailed briefing to the committee and responded to many questions that the law makers asked pertaining to various aspects of the defence budget, including percentage of budget allocated to each service and its utilisation for pays and allowances, maintenance, capital works, and purchases that are to be made both locally and abroad.
Understandably, the press was barred from the meeting. As per the information made available later, the proceedings were not a one-way affair with the defence officials telling the legislators whatever they wanted; some of the Opposition members expressed their concern vis-a-vis the transparency with regard to utilisation of funds. They were assured that they would get the relevant audit reports at the next meeting.
Indeed, this is a significant step forward from the previous practice of presenting a one-line defence budget in Parliament. Additional Secretary for Defence, Vice Air Marshal Maqbool Ali Shah, who made a detailed presentation on the process of formulation and monitoring of the defence budget, however, emphasised, like others in the defence establishment, that the budget is subjected to threadbare scrutiny at the time of its formulation and approval.
There is continuous monitoring, he said, during the preparation of the budget, and that the process involves transparent auditing and accountability.
This is a familiar line of argument, which purports to prove that since there exists a sound internal system of scrutiny and accountability, it eliminates the chances of any wrongdoing involving kickbacks, purchase of substandard equipment etc- malpractices often associated with civilian organisations and leadership.
But then cynics point, quite convincing, to the recent example of a former Naval chief, who was found guilty of having committed gross irregularities and pocketed a huge amount of public money as kickbacks from a sordid defence purchase deal before he retired to set up his new home in the cool comfort of America. Surely, the Navy, too, has a similar system of in-house scrutiny, and if it was possible for the Naval official to misappropriate money the same can happen in the other two arms, too.
That certainly is not to say that any wrongdoing has been taking place in the Army or the Air Force, but only that the possibility cannot be ruled out. Anyone may fall for the temptation as long as it is there. Besides, if everybody else is accountable, at least in theory, before Parliament, exception for the defence sector can easily lead, as it has, to resentment and suspicion. Its necessity of maintaining secrecy, of course, needs to be respected, but it is important that it too should have parliamentary oversight, through special committees, as is the practice in all established democracies.
The present government deserves credit for making an important beginning in this regard, which has been welcomed by the Opposition legislators as well. Quite enthused, they have sought more details on some aspects of the defence budget. Hopefully, as the next logical step, the government will present the proposed defence budget before a committee of the National Assembly, which has the real power to accept or reject any budgetary proposals. The practice must be institutionalised on a permanent basis.
Comments
Comments are closed.