Navy caused 'defence oversight'

2005-05-01 13:14

Addis Ababa - The SA Navy was the unwitting catalyst that triggered South Africa's defence oversight revolution when it went to parliament in 1995 to ask for new frigates.

Major General Len le Roux (retired) of the Pretoria-based Institute for Strategic Studies told a conference on defence budgeting in Addis Ababa that SA did not arrive at its current defence governance model by accident or by miracle.

Instead, the Navy's request triggered a response by the department of defence, then still largely distrusted and in the hands of the "old guard" from the apartheid military, despite the start of integration, to explain its future vision to the largely ANC-controlled parliament.

It was made clear to the military that until they could explain how the ships - or other equipment - would fit in with the department's democratisation and transformation, parliament would decline such requests.

The result was the 1996 Defence White Paper, 1998 Defence Review - which involved substantial civil society input - and the 2002 Defence Act.

Other reforms that distinguish the civil oversight of South Africa's armed forces from that of nearly all others on the continent is its subordination to the constitution and other national legislation.

"The Treasury is empowered to co-ordinate the national budget-preparation process, to manage the implementation of the national budget and to play a financial oversight role in all spheres of government," he said, adding South Africa was a worthy model for others to emulate.

"This legal empowerment has been well exercised by the minister of finance and the Treasury and has led to financial management and budgetary processes that conform to international best practice."

Less inclined to engage civil society

Financial policy and economic reform in South Africa have led to the introduction and implementation of medium-term planning and budgeting in the form of a three-year medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF), he said.

The MTEF, he said, has brought greater transparency, certainty and stability to the budgetary process and has strengthened the links between policy priorities and the government's medium-term spending plans.

If he had one concern, ten years later, it was that the defence department had become less inclined to engage civil society on military issues.

An ongoing review of the Defence Review, for example, was currently taking place behind closed doors.

He was also concerned that there was now a misalignment between the stated policy and the practice.

It was hoped the "review of the review" would sort out the mismatch.

Responding to questions on the role of parliamentarians, he said civil-military relations were not a one-way street.

MPs should primarily concern themselves with supervising the state, including the military, but this does not mean they should not lobby for defence when the armed services are underfunded, miss-equipped or abused.

- SAPA