Insights

The effectiveness of defence depends as much on how institutions are governed as on the amounts invested, according to Ambassador Nathalie Chuard, Director of DCAF, and Francesca Grandi, Director of Transparency International's Global Defense and Security Program. This piece was originally published in French in Le Temps to coincide with the Munich Security Conference 2026.

Global military spending hit a record $2.72 trillion in 2024 — a 9.4% increase from the previous year, and the steepest year-on-year rise since 1988. Military spending in the USA increased by 28%, reaching $997 billion. Europe's defence build-up accelerated at an unprecedented 17%, with the sharpest growth in Central and Northern Europe.

As budgets rise, procurement cycles accelerate, and political attention focuses on readiness and deterrence. Yet this emphasis risks overlooking a decisive factor: Defence effectiveness depends as much on how institutions are governed as on how much is spent. Good governance and people-centred approaches to security determine whether increased defence spending leads to efficient, effective, and accountable security — or undermines it.

Good governance is often treated as a secondary concern, better suited to development or peacebuilding actors. This is a strategic mistake. Transparency and accountability are fundamental elements of democratic resilience, long-term security, and sustainable peace. They ensure that defence institutions retain legitimacy, allocate resources effectively, and avoid reproducing the very insecurities they are meant to counter.

The speed-discretion trap

Transparency International Defence & Security's evidence is clear: accelerated defence spending heightens corruption risks. Procurement becomes the primary vulnerability. Yet many parliaments cannot effectively challenge these practices and ask the hard questions. They lack expertise. They lack access to information. They lack political leverage.

Oversight of the defence-industrial complex remains weak. Most legislatures have no structured mechanisms to scrutinise procurement. Without robust checks and balances, defence investments fail to translate into usable and sustainable capabilities.

There are positive examples too. Canada's parliamentary budget office provides independent scrutiny. Chile eliminated military proceeds from copper mines. Denmark built multi-party consensus for long-term defence budgets. South Africa's parliament works closely with the Auditor-General. These mechanisms improve prioritisation, reduce waste, and align resources with strategic needs.

Too often, corruption and weak oversight undermine readiness as surely as underinvestment would. When spending expands through accelerated procurement and exceptional budgetary procedures, the risks multiply. Public trust erodes. Political support weakens. Over time, this not only undermines democratic control but risks fuelling arms races, destabilising regions, and undermining long-term stability.

Defence readiness depends on public trust

Good governance is not abstract. It is practical. It keeps defence institutions aligned with their purpose: protecting people. Sustainable security depends not only on capabilities but on how force is governed — through civilian control, rule of law, accountability, and responsiveness to people's security needs.

Societies sustain high defence spending only when they trust their security institutions. Trust enables difficult trade-offs and mobilisation in times of crisis. Public debates, transparent decision-making, and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny all contribute to a more effective and legitimate defence sector. Where opacity, corruption, or abuse dominate, political support becomes fragile — particularly during economic or social stress. This increases exposure to foreign interference and manipulation of public opinion.

Embedding integrity safeguards — transparent procurement, conflict-of-interest controls, and credible oversight — reduces losses and improves reliability. Preserving open civic space is equally essential. When journalists, researchers, and civil society organisations can scrutinise defence policy and spending, they sustain informed debate, reinforce democratic oversight, and build long-term resilience against disinformation and external influence.

Ukraine's lesson

Lessons from Ukraine show how difficult fighting corruption becomes under existential threat. Wartime pressure increases discretion and weakens oversight, amplifying corruption risks. As DCAF’s work demonstrates, democratic governance — anchored in effective checks and balances and independent oversight — is essential to credible anti-corruption efforts. And ultimately, to effective defence.

Strengthening parliamentary oversight means asking better questions. Adding a Women, Peace and Security lens shifts scrutiny from "how is the money spent?" to "does this spending actually increase security?". Rather than focusing narrowly on financial compliance, gender-responsive oversight examines civilian impact, institutional integrity, and real security outcomes. This makes defence policy both smarter and more accountable.

What must change

Good governance is hardest when it matters most. As military leaders and politicians gather this week at the Munich Security Conference amidst widespread disenchantment with democratic institutions and pervasive loss of trust in meaningful reforms, we call them to act urgently:

First, reinforce parliamentary oversight on military expenditures. Acceleration should not mean opacity. Even where classification is required, a minimum transparency baseline must apply. This includes strengthened parliamentary budgetary scrutiny, civilian control, and inclusive, gender-responsive security.

Second, integrate good governance into defence planning from the start. Don't treat integrity and transparency as afterthoughts. Make them core parameters. This avoids embedding governance blind spots that later undermine legitimacy and operational effectiveness.

Third, strengthen integrity controls around industrial partnerships. As collaboration with the defence industry expands, robust safeguards are essential: conflict-of-interest rules, cooling-off periods, and targeted scrutiny of high-risk interactions. These ensure capability choices reflect security needs — not commercial or political influence.

The bottom line

Defence build-up without governance produces predictable and avoidable risks. By contrast, anchoring defence investment in transparency and good governance strengthens legitimacy, improves delivery, and reduces the likelihood that today's security solutions become tomorrow's instability drivers.

Spending more doesn't automatically deliver more security. What matters is how that money is governed — with civilian control, parliamentary oversight, public trust, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. That is not idealism, but strategic necessity.