Defence or development: The unending debate

And every year the critics point out how the budget has failed to live up to the expectations of the poor; how it has favoured the rich while ignoring the middle class. In the process we are exposed to the loathsome reality of the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer.

And every year, following the announcement of the proposed budget, the economist fraternity says its piece about the causes of the endemic poverty in Bangladesh and inevitably attributes it to the government's allocation of funds to wasteful, non-development, and unproductive sectors. And every year, Defence becomes the butt of all criticisms, the villain of the piece, it being, according the very erudite scholars, the most unproductive sector of all.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This year has been no exception. To start with, the finance minister's speech did not contain any mention of the expenditures and allocation to this sector. While last year he dwelt at some length on the defence allocation and, surprise surprise, on the earnings of hard foreign currency by our armed forces, this time he chose not to broach the subject at all. He may have his reasons for doing so, but, for the lesser-informed mortals his action was like adding a shroud of mystery to what is already an enigma to many. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the figures did not match, adding to the confusion. This has lent a degree of opacity to a matter that remains out of the ambit of popular discourse yet continues to be a sensitive and topical issue.

So far what one can make of the Defence allocation is that Tk 4,320 crores, which is 6.7 per cent of the total budget outlay, has been set aside for this sector, an increase of about ten percent over last year. And like last year, the finance minister has been criticised for allocating such a huge sum of money to Defence at the expense of the soft sectors, implying that it is these sectors that would suffer because of the "high" allocation to Defence.

Some very interesting and somewhat sweeping comments were made by some commentators while giving out their reactions to the press on the proposed budget. It was fascinating to hear some of them venture into the realms of geopolitics, military strategy, and security policy. As like always, suggestions were made that the defense expenditure is unproductive if not totally wasteful. Reportedly, some even passed value judgments on the capability of our armed forces, calling for reduction in the allocation because, "Bangladesh Armed forces do not have the capability to fight any country." The example of Costa Rica was drawn to suggest that, by the same argument, Bangladesh could get by without a military.

These are indeed value judgments that, coming as they do from highly erudite and well-known scholars, deserve to be gone into, if only to assess the objectivity and rationale of their estimate of the worth of our armed forces and the "wasteful expenditure" they incur. And as always, absent is any suggestion as to exactly which part of the Defence allocation could be reduced or done away with altogether.

Let us start by restating a self-evident truth, that the primary task of a military is to prevent fighting taking place in the first place, which in the common strategic jargon is referred to as deterrence. Unfortunately, the positive effects of deterrence are intangible, becoming apparent only when it fails in preventing the outbreak of a military conflagration. And budgeting deterrence is indeed difficult, since as yet defense economics is unable to take into account all the variables and give an answer to the question "how much deterrence is enough deterrence?"

The other startling disclosure was the estimation of the fighting capability of the armed forces, something that has so long eluded the grasp of the security experts and economists. It would be only appropriate for the scholars to reveal the determinants that helped them to conclude so definitively about the combat efficiency of our military. This would help us in two ways. First, it would help the armed forces improve their allocational efficiency. Second, the factors that degrade the capability of the military could be addressed and appropriate corrective actions could be undertaken.

It is difficult to accept the tag "unproductive" that is often attached to the armed forces, in the absence of any pricing mechanism to quantify its output. One can understand why one gets to hear such arguments, often offered to reinforce the demand for reduction of the military budget. While the input is so tangible, unfortunately the productivity is not so apparent. But surely a force that contributed upwards of Tk 550 crores to our foreign currency kitty last year, only through its UN involvement, not to speak of other international military engagements, can hardly be termed unproductive. To term an organisation that provides for more than 15 percent of its budget through overseas employment unproductive is less than convincing.

And like every year I repeat without being apologetic that Defence and indeed the security of a country are too important to be left to the half-informed. Many of the comments regarding defence expenditure stem from asymmetry of information and lack of comprehension of the matter. Perhaps it is time that there was a debate on the whole issue, involving people from all walks of life.

If the expenditure on social sectors is intended to provide human security, the aim of military spending is to provide the strategic security, and as such should not be seen as being in conflict with social spending.

The author is Editor, Defense and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.