Determinants of military expenditure in Zimbabwe

Although by African standards Zimbabwe’s military expenditure burden of around 3.8 percent of GDP in 2009 seems modest, it represents a significant increase from the 1.7 percent reported in 2004. It is unlikely to be amenable to econometric analysis, given Zimbabwe’s turbulent recent history and the general lack of transparency there. Important influences on spending are likely imbedded in the beliefs and attitudes of decisionmakers and, as in most other developing countries, it is likely to be an extremely opaque process, with many off-budget sources of income. Certainly there is evidence to suggest that in Africa security-related outlays are frequently deliberately included in nonmilitary budgets, with weapons purchases often funded from off-budget and extra-budgetary sources. This article studies influences on and identifies various types of extra-budgetary and hidden channels of funding military activities in Zimbabwe. The aim is to obtain insight into the military budgetary process and to explore institutionalized means for controlling, monitoring, and auditing the country’s military expenditure. Given its colonial history, and that it shares certain institutional and governance characteristics of other southern African countires, Zimbabwe provides a particularly interesting case. The article briefly reviews research on the military budgetary process in Africa before outlining the research method used to investigate determinants of military expenditure in Zimbabwe. It then examines factors that influenced budget allocations to the security forces in Zimbabwe up to 2009.


Determinants of military expenditure in Zimbabwe
Zachary Tambudzai A lthough by African standards Zimbabwe's military expenditure burden of around 3.8 percent of GDP in 2009 seems modest, it represents a significant increase from the 1.7 percent reported in 2004.It is unlikely to be amenable to econometric analysis, given Zimbabwe's turbulent recent history and the general lack of transparency there.Important influences on spending are likely imbedded in the beliefs and attitudes of decisionmakers and, as in most other developing countries, it is likely to be an extremely opaque process, with many off-budget sources of income.Certainly there is evidence to suggest that in Africa security-related outlays are frequently deliberately included in nonmilitary budgets, with weapons purchases often funded from off-budget and extra-budgetary sources. 1 This article studies influences on and identifies various types of extra-budgetary and hidden channels of funding military activities in Zimbabwe.The aim is to obtain insight into the military budgetary process and to explore institutionalized means for controlling, monitoring, and auditing the country's military expenditure.Given its colonial history, and that it shares certain institutional and governance characteristics of other southern African countires, Zimbabwe provides a particularly interesting case.
The article briefly reviews research on the military budgetary process in Africa before outlining the research method used to investigate determinants of military expenditure in Zimbabwe.It then examines factors that influenced budget allocations to the security forces in Zimbabwe up to 2009.

Military budgeting in Africa
Studies of the determinants of military expenditure are numerous, but those focusing on Africa are limited in number.Most employ econometric analyses of country or cross-country data to examine the impact of economic and strategic factors.While they yield with some interesting results, they fail to explain the processes involved.To develop a better understanding of the allocation of public spending to the military, an analysis of the underlying motivating factors is needed.These include geostrategic considerations, budgetary politics, the behavior of arms suppliers, enabling factors, such as linkages between interest groups, and underlying factors, such as military pressure groups, and the belief that military expenditure results in greater national security, status, and pride.As one analyst observed, a "highly non-transparent military sector" is a breeding ground for off-budget expenditure and corruption, which can undermine a security force's operational efficiency. 2 A culture of secrecy is a common feature in the military sector in Africa, and the ruling elite in most states regard the military as a special institution.Indeed, studies of military budgeting have found that for most countries, there is no prescribed military budgeting process.For example, one study of eight African countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and South Africa), found that procedures for budgeting for the military were not followed in practice.Where there is a documented formal process, it is typically ignored and in most cases budgets are determined by a small faction close to the executive in an informal way, with little relation to a military plan or goal.The general public and professionals in most African states did not debate or participate in the formulation of security policy and the role of parliament was limited by the lack of experts and knowledge about the military sector.Audit reports rarely included corrupt practices in the defense ministries and were never critical of off-budget spending.Off-budget spending was evident in many military institutions and there was very little transparency and lack of scrutiny in military budgeting. 3part from the normal budget allocations there are other potential military revenue sources, including income from military business activity, special funds from nonmilitary parastatals, war levies, foreign military assistance, and criminal activities.United Nations peacekeeping operations, in which the participating countries and their soldiers are rewarded were also an important source of funds.The military were also involved in business activities to supplement their inadequate salaries and finance daily activities.Foreign exchange revenues from resource extraction and credit from friendly overseas governments for the purchase of military equipment can also be of importance. 4n attempting to understand the determinants of military expenditure in a country that has had the turbulent history of Zimbabwe, one would expect the culture, underlying processes, and institutional factors to play an important if not dominant role.To analyze them, it is necessary to look beyond the reported figures and delve into the underlying motivations and drivers, using qualitative rather than a quantitative data.

Research procedure
For this study, informal interviews were carried out with six categories of respondents This article studies influences on and identifies various types of extra-budgetary and hidden channels of funding military activities in Zimbabwe.The aim is to obtain insight into the military budgeting process and to explore institutionalized means for controlling, monitoring, and auditing the country's military expenditure.
The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, ISSN 1749-852X   Tambudzai., Zimbabwe p. 42  © www.epsjournal.org.uk-Vol.6, No. 2 (2011)   from government bureaus, the security sector, parliamentarians, opposition parties, civil society (including the media), and relevant academics.In line with Harris' research for South Africa, thirteen research questions (presented in the appendix) were used where possible.Given the volatile political environment in which the research was conducted, it was difficult to fulfil the planned sample size of 24 participants, but efforts were made to interact with individuals from all target groups and a response rate of 67 percent was achieved, with an average of 3 interviewees per category.When interviews were not possible, direct informal interactions with informants, telephone interviews, and email were used to elicit responses.
Information was also collected from secondary sources such as documents from various public and private archives in Zimbabwe and online government and private archival sources for the period 2005 to 2009.Internet searches provided information on more recent developments from online sources including newspapers (both private and government owned), speeches (by ministers, senior army officers, members of parliament, and senior civil servants), and nongovernmental organizations' web sites (e.g., Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, Global Integrity, and International Crisis Group).Journal articles and books written on the Zimbabwean Defence Forces (ZDF) by various military specialists provided more detail. 5ata analysis and processing involved the use of Nvivo 2, a qualitative data analysis software package, to assist in coding and categorizing data into various factors that influence decisionmakers when allocating resources to the military.Checking for consistency of views from interviews (triangulation) was achieved by examining and comparing findings from the six different informant categories, and comparing interview data with information collected from documents.The analysis first involved generating themes from the codes and categories identified in the textual data; second, producing a general description of the responses from informants in line with the themes generated; and third, producing a description of data obtained from various documentary sources.The secondary sources acted as "confirmatory data collection-deepening insights into and confirming patterns that seem to have appeared." 6

Drivers of military spending
Three major themes on influences on military expenditure were identified from the responses.First, high levels of military spending were justified by beliefs and attitudes regarding external threats, regime change threats, and security.Second, military spending was promoted by the relationship between the ruling elite and the military.Third, the budgetary process was characterized by an overall lack of oversight.While markedly different responses were received from the different informants, in general they saw local, regional, and international political and security imperatives as drivers of the level and trend of Zimbabwe's military expenditure.The influences on military expenditure allocations as obtained from the informal interviews were consistent with the data obtained from the documentary sources.

Perceived threats: external and internal
Most government and military officials interviewed suggested four major justifications for the allocation of funds to the military sector: state security, regime change or (external) threats, fulfilling peacekeeping duties, and the influence of regional wars or internal political instability.Informants from the other four groups (parliament, civil society, opposition, and academics) saw allocations being driven by the government's desire to curry favor with the military, the desire to maintain regional superiority, a sense of political insecurity and re-election strategy, and rent-seeking and corruption.Primary sources were consistent with government documents identifying the reasons for financing the military as the need to fulfill its constitutional role of providing national defense, the volatile and unpredictable security environment and external threats, the need for training of military personnel, regional cooperation and international peacekeeping operations, and the re-equipment and modernization program.
Government officials interviewed believed that the West pursued a regime change agenda for Zimbabwe, so the government of Zimbabwe needed to step up military training and military equipment acquisition to increase national security.Some informants within the military emphasized the influence of a necessary renewal program, to acquire new weapons following the arms embargo imposed by the West in 2002.The then-defense minister, Dr. Sekeramayi, argued that "[m]ilitary preparedness should always be top priority, even during peacetime.While there may be no direct military threats to Zimbabwe today, there may be one tomorrow."To achieve this, in 2006 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) revealed that the Zimbabwe Defence Forces had signed major contracts with Chinese companies like NORINCO, CATIC, and Polytechnologies.Funding for the renewal program also came directly from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ). 7p until 1993, the government used apartheid threats to justify high spending.Currently, they point to the threat of invasion by the United States and the United Kingdom.Some academics argue that the paranoia of re-colonization and invasion is influenced by the position taken by the West in classifying Zimbabwe together with rogue states like Iran and North Korea.Senior army officials expressed similar sentiments at graduation parades for newly trained soldiers.In 2006 and 2007, senior Three major themes on influences on military expenditure in Zimbabwe were identified from the responses.First, high levels of military spending were justified by beliefs and attitudes regarding external threats, regime change threats, and security.Second, military spending was promoted by the relationship between the ruling elite and the military.Third, the budgetary process was characterized by an overall lack of oversight.
The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, ISSN 1749-852X   Tambudzai., Zimbabwe p. 43  © www.epsjournal.org.uk-Vol.6, No. 2 (2011)   army and air force commanders took turns to highlight the threats posed by the West to Zimbabwe and urged the soldiers to defend the country's independence. 8t various forums and speeches, President Mugabe has accused Britain and the white farmers of funding attempts at regime change in Zimbabwe.This was echoed by senior defense officials and commanders, who asserted that the pattern of expenditure is influenced by "the dynamic, volatile and unpredictable nature of the country's security environment."Other respondents outside government and the military establishment, however, believe the regime change argument to be a smoke screen, meant to hide the use of patronage and to ensure regime security.They argue that the state has bought the loyalty of the defense forces through salary hikes and nonpecuniary packages (farms, cars) and see the ruling party-military alliance as a way of maintaining political power and satisfying business and political rent-seeking interests. 9hree government and military officials interviewed indicated that there is a military threat from the West toward Zimbabwe.This is corroborated, for instance, by Brigadier General Trust Mugoba's speech in 2006 where he noted that the government had reduced army personnel by 25 percent because of "a lack of external threats and had channeled the money into social development instead."To some extent this gives credence to the assertion by civil society and opposition groups that the external threats argument is not real. 10he arms embargo imposed by the West is believed to have limited the military capability of the ZDF.This forced the ZANU-PF (the ruling party) regime to look for other sources of arms as well as other methods of financing the purchases, given the worsening economic conditions.In addition to normal budget allocations, the government relied on barter trade to acquire ammunition, equipment, and planes.Mugabe turned to Asia and to the Middle East and used mining and farming concessions to get more arms.China took the bulk of Zimbabwe's tobacco, diamonds, and gold in exchange for agricultural equipment and military hardware.In 2004, the Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Home Affairs was informed by the defense ministry that arms acquisitions were necessitated by an arms and spares embargo on Zimbabwe. 11part from the provision of national security by a well-trained force, there was also an element of trying to retain national pride and status achieved through participation in peacekeeping and military interventions in crises in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Somalia.Zimbabwe also participated in peacekeeping operations in East Timor, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone, and more recently in Sudan's Darfur region.Zimbabwe also provides training infrastructure for the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) to instruct peacekeepers and offer security training courses.Peacekeeping duties are an opportunity to boost the funds available to the ZDF.The proceeds from United Nations peacekeeping missions were used to purchase vehicles from Japan.There has, however, been a shift in Zimbabwe's defense policy since 2000, away from the idea of regional collaborative security of the 1990s to the preservation of the ZANU-PF party and government.Whether the external threats to national security are real or not, they seem to have a bearing on the extent of the resources allocated to national defense in Zimbabwe. 12e relationship between the military and the ruling elite As expected, the research findings indicate that the ruling party (i.e., ZANU-PF) used patronage among security chiefs to retain political power.It manipulated the defense budgetary process to ensure that parliament ratified defense allocations without considering trade-offs with other departments.In addition to the budgetary allocation, a much larger amount was hidden in unallocated reserves by the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and, more recently, parliament has been called upon by the executive to condone unauthorized spending by the military, facilitated by the RBZ through quasi-fiscal policies. 13here is little external scrutiny of military budgets as military-related national pressure groups have had little effect and multilateral donor organizations have had no direct influence since 1999.In contrast, the suppliers of military-related goods have had considerable influence on the size of the defense budget through their connections to the military leadership and the ruling party politicians.The military incursion in the DRC in 1998 had the backing of a number of Zimbabwean entrepreneurs, who have relations with the army and senior politicians. 14ilitary and intelligence services also influence the size of the security budget through the Joint Operations Command (JOC), the ruling party, and the presidency.Human Rights Watch Zimbabwe has argued that the military defends Mugabe because they are corrupt and that the JOC members "... have dirty hands.They've enriched themselves and want to hang on to what they have and avoid charges of corruption."For instance, a company owned by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces commander's wife, ZimSafe, won some contracts to supply reflective clothing.While Mr. Muchakazi, a procurement specialist with the MoD acknowledged this, he refuted allegations of corruption in the procurement process.Other MoD officials acknowledged that the tendering process led to higher than normal prices and expressed reservations about the effectiveness of the indigenization policy on army procurement.For instance, the permanent secretary in the MoD said "... middleman ended up profiteering at the expense of taxpayers.There is a political element in these so-called middlemen and indigenous companies.If we [the defense ministry] go to established companies for our supplies, we achieve our goals and end up saving." 15imbabwe does not have an arms industry per se but it does produce ammunition for small arms.Zimbabwe Defence Industry (ZDI), a government-owned company formed in 1984, manufactures small arms and exports ammunition mainly to African countries.Comments in interviews suggested that the operations of ZDI are not transparent and not even reported in parliament."The culture of secrecy and silence The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, ISSN 1749-852X   Tambudzai., Zimbabwe p. 44  © www.epsjournal.org.uk-Vol.6, No. 2 (2011)   which is characteristic of the present ZDI operations is out of step with current international trends and democratic practice." 16xpenditure on military equipment also appears to be fueled by elections.In 2005, military sources said, "[o]ur army has received the equipment as part of a deal to fully equip it ahead of the March parliamentary elections.Mugabe would want the army to be totally prepared in advance of the 2005 parliamentary elections to retain him in power." 17ilitarization of state institutions emanates from Zimbabwe's political and liberation history, resulting in a brutal political culture.As Rupiya observed, the use of "the military approach" in order to solve the country's problems "... has not moved out of the revolutionary war context," illustrating the special role the military plays in the state.To this can be added the rent-seeking behavior of both the army and ZANU-PF government that leads to collective behavior to maintain or increase military spending.A military chief's stay in power is guaranteed by the ruling party, and the party's continuous hold on power is guaranteed by the military forces.The armed forces are co-opted into civilian duties and so their influence in budget allocation increases and there is no real objective debate. 18he secretary general of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is in no doubt about the reasons behind the lack of oversight in the budgetary process.Commenting on the 2007 Supplementary Budget, Biti wrote: "Stripped [to] its bare bones the supplementary budget betrays ... the power retention agenda in which the State resources will be spend without reason or limit purely for the purposes of maintaining and reproducing power.One finds that the amounts allocated to the President's Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs, is a staggering ... 33 percent of the supplementary budget."The main purpose of the military budget is power retention by the ZANU-PF government.Biti also wrote, "… it is a State that is fiercely loyal to one value and one value alone; the power retention matrix." 19ost military analysts agree with Biti's sentiments and analysis that security forces are there to defend the regime in power rather than the country.So far, ZANU-PF has obtained favorable political results from the terror instilled by the armed forces and the veterans of the liberation war.This has encouraged politicians and government to cultivate an excellent relationship with the defense forces, especially the commanders.This is the reason why in return for a good power retention job, the army always gets monetary and nonmonetary benefits. 20hitiyo and Rupiya summarised ZANU-PF's survival strategy as a military operation, the so-called Third Chimurenga.They noted that, " [b]elieving that it [ZANU-PF] faced a 'total onslaught' from internal and external opponents who wished to hijack the gains of the liberation war in modern Zimbabwe, the state responded with its own 'total offensive' (legal, political, cultural, economic and military) to ensure state survival and to preserve the gains of land redistribution exercise."Ndlovu-Gatsheni concurred with this assessment when he wrote: "These recent developments testify to the trend towards militarism in politics."He argued that ZANU-PF has used the army in a "political power game.It seems they [the army] see themselves as hired to protect the regime in power rather than the population of Zimbabwe."Rupiya also observed that "[i]n the newfound relationship, the distance between party and government was collapsed and by extension, the professional standing of the military in its national symbolism disappeared.Instead, the security organs have assumed partisan roles and functions in support of the ruling party ..." 21 Ndlovu-Gatsheni also noted that ZANU-PF has succeeded in politicizing the army and the police.Zimbabwean defense forces commanders have repeatedly vowed not to allow anyone who did not fight in Zimbabwe's liberation war to take power as president of the country."To keep the army on his side, President Mugabe has awarded soldiers substantial salary and allowance increases.Officers in the army have also been given a larger slice of seized white farmlands."The comments and statements from academics and military researchers show how important is the military to the ZANU-PF regime and how they are in the driving seat.This removes all superordinate rationality from the process of allocating resources to the military (i.e., "rationality" is restricted to the inside deal between military and ZANU-PF).With the bulk of decisionmakers even in cabinet having a military/security background, who can oppose a flawed budget from the Minister of Defence? 22 The nontransparent military budgetary process The informants made it clear that the Zimbabwe military gets special treatment in resource allocation.The military's demands are met without justification by the governing party.Ministry of Defence budget rules are not always respected, particularly with requests for additional funding and expenditure where, contrary to normal budget principles, the executive does not normally consult parliament.Most informants (63 percent) believe that in Zimbabwe, expenditure on health and education should be accorded special attention instead of spending on defense, confirming the views expressed in some secondary sources, which argue for a reprioritization of government spending to deal with economic and social problems. 23earings by the Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Home Affairs revealed that the cabinet makes military decisions without consultation with parliament, reinforcing the International Crisis Group (2000) report that ZDF intervention in the DRC had been a unilateral decision and "was done with little or no consultation with Parliament ... and until August 2000, the Zimbabwean public was provided little information about the engagement-including what it cost and casualties incurred."A member of the Defence Committee, Kasukuwere, "... queried the manner in which the purchase of military equipment had by-passed the State Procurement Board, a move he said might result in the army buying equipment which may be expensive, but having a short life span."The lack of transparency and the flouting of procedures are prone to breeding corrupt practices that seem to be rampant in military circles.
The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, ISSN 1749-852X   Tambudzai., Zimbabwe p. 45  © www.epsjournal.org.uk-Vol.6, No. 2 (2011)   Makumbe also noted that corruption in Zimbabwe is rife because there is "currently no agency responsible for monitoring conflicts of interest among public servants who make decisions on matters of state procurement and the awarding of tenders ..." Henk and Rupiya also revealed the weakness in accountability and reported that Zimbabwe's Comptroller and Auditor-General had repeatedly called attention to irregularities in military spending, with billions of dollars unaccounted for and little indication of government interest in investigating wrongdoing or correcting the abuse in ministries. 24ontrary to McNutt's assertion that governments are there to be manipulated, in Zimbabwe it seems the regime had a fair share of manipulating the military to its advantage.Two-thirds of informants noted that there is no serious oversight over military spending and that normal budgetary rules and procedures are not being followed.In practice, there appears to be no sense of trade-offs in resource allocation by the executive.A government official acknowledged that "[t]he objectives as stated in the defense policy are now different.The [military] budget is designed to serve partisan interest.Currently, conditions in government simply call for a stronger army and heavily armed uniformed force to coerce citizens to obey the law and vote for the current government to stay in power.There is no civility in the decisionmaking process since everything sounds arbitrary and biased." 25overnment documents show that the budgetary process in the military is the same as in the other government ministries and departments.The budgetary process has many discrete phases, the first stage being pre-budget meetings between January and March of every year.Parliament is involved in the budgetary process at the formulation stage through participation in a pre-budget seminar.However, Mnangagwa emphasised that the national budget in Zimbabwe is guided by nationalist principles as well as by patriotism. 26he official role of the parliament in military budgeting and management is to regulate and ensure accountability."[T]he ZDF is subject to the security and administration of regulatory parliamentary and security committees.These include Budget, Public Accounts and Security committees, which censor the defense budget, scrutinize defense expenditure and monitor the activities of the defense forces, respectively."In addition, there is the Comptroller and Auditor-General, an independent officer accountable to parliament who each financial year, examines, audits, and reports on public funds property in terms of the Constitution and the Audit and Exchequer Act.However, for almost two decades, parliament has had no say in military matters.Furthermore, since 2003, the defense ministry has benefited from the RBZ's quasi-fiscal policies, not included in the national budget.In the case of citizens' participation in budget formulation, research by Global Integrity found that "[t]he sentiments of citizens are generally not respected, feared or listened to ... So though the citizens murmured disapproval at the largest budget allocation going to defence in a time of peace, nothing was done about it." 27hese findings show that the military budgetary process is mainly a political exercise, with institutions of democracy playing a secondary role as the ruling elite can raise the military budget levels without even consulting parliament.Military purchases only come into the public domain or parliament well after deals have been concluded.The rules guiding the fiscal process are there, but ZANU-PF/military interests determine the military expenditure levels.Armament procurement as well as military interventions are deemed to be executive decisions.

Conclusion
Integrating the findings from the informal interviews and document analysis gives a view of the important institutions and processes involved in the allocation of resources to the military in Zimbabwe.Although the military budget is presented in the national budget, the final figure rests with the ruling elite, especially the presidency and the security arms of government.Military expenditure fits the aspirations of the ruling party, implying that national security is secondary to regime security.Military leaders are presented as a subset of ZANU-PF because of the close association (alliance) between the two, and the formation of the JOC shows just how influential the army has become in resource allocation decisions.Documentary evidence shows that the opposition parties believe that ZANU-PF and the military determine the levels of military expenditure.As MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa once said, "[i]f you look at key institutions, the army is calling the shots.Even Mugabe's campaign is being carried out by the army." 28his article has provided a qualitative analysis of the determinants of military expenditure in Zimbabwe.It complements econometric studies by illustrating the influence of internal historical and political dynamics on top of external threats and economic factors.The importance of the domestic-political dynamics in military expenditure allocation decisionmaking has been demonstrated, with regime security and rent-seeking/elite corruption being important factors in increasing military expenditure allocations.Other factors that influence allocations are the lack of serious oversight and accountability, the liberation ideology and mentality of the Mugabe regime, and the regime change paranoia caused by a Western arms embargo and other selective sanctions.
While Zimbabwe is a very specific case, the article does illustrate the potential importance of qualitative factors in understanding the determination of military expenditure, especially in Africa where similar conditions obtain.

Notes
Zachary Tambudzai is a lecturer in economics at the School of Economics and Finance, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.He may be reached at <tambudzai@ukzn.ac.za>.