Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T07:25:55.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When civilian control is civil: Parliamentary oversight of the military in Belgium and New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2018

Philippe Lagassé  and
Stephen M. Saideman
Philippe Lagassé*
Affiliation:
Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University
Stephen M. Saideman
Affiliation:
Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study introduces a new type of oversight in civil-military and executive-legislative relations: community policing. Building on principal-agent theory, this type of oversight emphasises trust rather than confrontation. To illustrate how community policing functions, the study examines how legislative oversight of military affairs operates in Belgium and New Zealand. Legislative defence committees in both countries rely on trust when overseeing the executive’s handling of defence affairs. This allows these committees to perform their oversight function at low cost in terms of time and effort, but with a high degree of access to information. Community policing therefore combines the strengths of recognised ‘police patrol’ and ‘fire alarm’ oversight, while avoiding their respective weaknesses. However, since it relies on a higher degree of trust and cooperation between the principal and agent, community policing is inherently fragile.

Keywords

MilitaryLegislatureOversightCivil-Military RelationsBelgiumNew Zealand
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of International Security , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 20 - 40
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Pas de preuve d’un bombardement d’un F-16 belge en Syrie’, L’Avenir (20 October 2016), available at: {http://www.lavenir.net/cnt/dmf20161020_00899551/la-russie-l-affirme-des-f-16-belges-ont-bien-bombarde-ale} accessed 25 June 2018.

2 Sarah Freres, ‘Bombardements en Irak et en Syrie: “Le manque de transparence belge profite à Daech”’, DH.Be (22 March 2017), available at: {http://www.dhnet.be/actu/faits/bombardements-en-irak-et-en-syrie-le-manque-de-transparence-belge-profite-a-daech-58d184a9cd70a15c9a49239f} accessed 25 June 2018.

3 See, for example, Avant, D. D., Political Institutions and Military Change: Lessons from Peripheral Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Avant, D. D., The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feaver, Peter D., Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feaver, Peter D., ‘Crisis as shirking: an agency theory explanation of the souring of American civil-military relations’, Armed Forces & Society, 24:3 (1998), p. 407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feaver, Peter, ‘Civil-military relations’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2 (1999), pp. 211–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zegart, A. B., Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the C.I.A., J.C.S., and N.S.C. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

4 McCubbins, Mathew D. and Schwartz, Thomas, ‘Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms’, American Journal of Political Science, 28:1 (1984), pp. 165–179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feaver, Armed Servants.

5 Miller, Gary J. and Whitford, Andrew B., ‘Trust and incentives in principal-agent negotiations’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14:2 (2002), pp. 231–267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 McCubbins and Schwartz, ‘Congressional oversight overlooked’.

7 Ibid., p. 166.

8 Ibid.

9 Avant, The Market for Force; Feaver, Armed Servants; Auerswald, David P. and Saideman, Stephen M., NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Lagassé, Philippe and Sokolsky, Joel J., ‘A larger “footprint” in Ottawa: General Hillier and Canada’s shifting civil-military relationship’, Canadian Foreign Policy, 15:2 (2009), pp. 16–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sarigil, Zeki, ‘The Turkish Military: Principal or agent’, Armed Forces and Society, 40:1 (2012), pp. 168–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pion-Berlin, David and Trinkunas, Harold, ‘Civilian praetorianism and military shirking during constitutional crises in Latin America’, Comparative Politics, 42:4 (2010), pp. 395–411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Auserwald, David P., ‘Legislatures and civil-military relations in the United States and the United Kingdom’, West European Politics, 40:1 (2017), pp. 42–61 Google Scholar; Lagassé, Philippe and Saideman, Stephen, ‘Public critics or secretive monitors: Party preferences and legislative oversight of the military in Canada’, West European Politics, 40:1 (2017), pp. 119–138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Saalfeld, Thomas, ‘Members of parliament and governments in Western Europe: Agency relations and the problems of oversight’, European Journal of Political Research, 37:3 (2000), pp. 353–376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Miller and Whiteford, ‘Civilian praetorianism’.

13 Bureau of Justice Assistance, Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 2014)Google Scholar.

14 We follow Auerswald and Saideman (NATO in Afghanistan) in considering a delegation contract (the agreement, formal or informal between the principal and agent) to consist of four parts: agent selection, allocation of discretion, the form of oversight, and incentives. Much of the principal-agent literature focuses on incentives as Miller and Whitford, ‘Civilian praetorianism’ note. Other scholars have argued that the findings about trust do not necessarily challenge principal-agency logics, but instead the insights can be incorporated. See Beccerra, Manuel and Gupta, Anil K., ‘Trust within the organization: Integrating the trust literature with agency theory and transaction costs economics’, Public Administration Quarterly, 23:2 (1999), pp. 177–203 Google Scholar.

15 In a larger project, we consider even more cooperative forms of principal-agent relations: cheerleading and collusion, where oversight is actually non-existent or undermined.

16 Feaver, Armed Servants.

17 Beccerra and Gupta, ‘Trust within the organization’, p. 183.

18 To be clear, our intent is not to use most similar cases to test hypotheses. Geddes, B., ‘How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics’, Political Analysis, 2:1 (1990), pp. 131–150 Google Scholar; George, A. L. and Bennett, A., Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Boston: MIT Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Levy, J. S., ‘Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25:1 (2008), pp. 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Lagassé and Saideman, ‘Public critics or secretive monitors’.

20 We return to the scope of this approach in the conclusion.

21 Interview with Mouvement Réformateur political advisor, 17 November 2016.

22 Interview with Sébastian Pirlot, Parti Socialiste, 16 November 2016; interview with defence policy advisors, Office of the Belgian Defence Minister, 16 November 2016.

23 Interview with defence policy advisors, Office of the Belgian Defence Minister.

24 On Belgium as a ‘partitocracy’, see De Winter, Liven, ‘Parliament and government in Belgium: Prisoners of patitocracy’, in Philip Norton (ed.), Parliaments in Contemporary Western Europe (London: Frank Crass, 1998)Google Scholar and Dewachter, Wilfred, De Mythe van Parlementaire Democratie (Leuven: Acco, 2003)Google Scholar.

25 Strøm, Kaare, ‘A behavioral theory of competitive political parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 34:2 (1990), pp. 565–598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Belgium does not have a civilian defence department.

27 Interview with Lieutenant General Philippe Grosdent, Belgian Military Representative to NATO, 15 November 2016.

28 The prime minister and deputy prime ministers, however, ultimately decide the most sensitive matters among themselves. Interview with Mouvement Réformateur political advisor.

29 Interview with Luc Peetermans, Committee secretariat, Chambre des représantants, 17 November 2016; interview with Major General Rudy Debaene, Director General Material Resources, 18 November 2016.

30 The choice to staff official positions in the office with civilians or military officers belongs with the minister and has varied. Interview with Grosdent.

31 For an overview of the decision-making procedures for operations, see Cour des Comptes, ‘Tier des enseignements des operations militaires à l’étranger’, November 2010; interview with Colonel Christophe Closset, Head of Defence Policy, 16 November 2016.

32 Interview with Professor Alexander Mattelaer, 16 November 2016.

33 Interview with defence policy advisors, Office of the Belgian Defence Minister.

34 Interview with Pirlot.

35 Opposition parties recently attempted to pass legislation that would make the Chief of Defence appear before the national defence committee on a regular basis. It failed to pass.

36 Interview with Grosdent.

37 Interview with Mouvement Réformateur political advisor.

38 Interview with defence policy advisors, Office of the Belgian Defence Minister.

39 Ibid.

40 Interview with Pirlot.

41 Craig R. Whitney, ‘Belgium convicts 12 for corruption on military contracts’, The New York Times (24 December 1998).

42 Interview with Debaene.

43 Interview with Peter Buysrogge, Niuew-Vlaamse Alliantie, 17 November 2016.

44 Interview with Pirlot; interview with Buysrogge.

45 Interview with Benoit Hellings, Ecolo-Groen, 14 November 2016.

46 Interview with Debaene.

47 Interview with Peetermans.

48 Interview with Grosdent.

49 Interview with Pirlot; interview with Debaene.

50 Interview with Debaene.

51 Interview with Buysrogge.

52 Ibid.

53 Interview with Debaene.

54 Interview Pirlot.

55 Interview with Debaene and interview with Buysrogge.

56 Interview with Hellings.

57 Interview with Pirlot.

58 Interview with Debaene.

59 Interview with Pirlot.

60 Interview with Hellings.

61 Ibid.

62 Interview with Francis Delpérée, Centre démocrat humaniste, 16 November 2016.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Interview with Delpérée; interview with Grosdent.

66 Interview with Delpérée.

67 The Cour des Comptes noted that the government could provide better justifications for the initiation of operations. See Cour des Comptes, ‘Tier des enseignements des operations militaires à l’étranger’, p. 23.

68 Reykers, Yf and Fonck, Daan, ‘Who is controlling whom? An analysis of the Belgian federal parliament’s executive oversight capacities towards the military interventions in Libya (2011) and Iraq (2014–1015)’, Studia Diplomatica, 68:2 (2015), pp. 91–110 Google Scholar.

69 Interview with Delpérée.

70 Fonck, Daan and Reykers, Yf, ‘Parliamentarisaion as a two-way process: Explaining prior parliamentary consultation for military interventions’, Parliamentary Affairs (2018), pp. 1–23 Google Scholar; advanced article available at: doi:10.1093/pa/gsx081.

71 Interview with Hellings; Interview with Delpérée; Reykers and Fonck, ‘Who is controlling whom?.

72 Interview with Hellings.

73 Interview with Mouvement Réformateur political advisor.

74 Interview with Hellings and interview with Pirlot.

75 Interview with Hellings.

76 Fonck and Reykers, ‘Parliamentarisaion as a two-way process’; Reykers and Fonck, ‘Who is controlling whom?’.

77 Interview with Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Defence, 11 August 2016.

78 Interview with Wayne Mapp, former FADT member and defence minister, 10 August 2016.

79 Interview with Mapp; Interview with General (rtd) Rhys Jones, former Chief of Defence Force, 12 August 2016.

80 Interview with Jones.

81 Ibid.

82 Greener, Peter, Timing is Everything: The Politics and Processes of New Zealand Defence Acquisition Decision Making (Canberra: ANU E Press, 2009)Google Scholar

83 Ibid., ch. 7.

84 Interview with Brownlee.

85 Ibid.

86 Interview with auditors from the Office of the Auditor-General, 12 August 2016.

87 Interview with senior Ministry of Defence official, 10 August 2016.

88 Interview with senior Ministry of Defence officials, 9 August 2016; Transparency International Government, Defence, Anti-Corruption Index: New Zealand 2015 Country Summary (2015).

89 Interview with Mapp.

90 Interview with former FADT analyst, 11 August 2016.

91 Ibid.

92 Interview with Mapp.

93 Interview with Ron Mark, New Zealand First MP, 10 August 2016.

94 Interview with Mark Mitchell, National MP and Chair of FADT, 9 August 2016; interview with Kennedy Graham, Green Party MP, 9 August 2016; interview with Mark.

95 Interview with David Shearer, Labour Party MP, 10 August 2016; interview with Mark Mitchell, National MP and Chair of FADT, 9 August 2016.

96 Interview with Shearer; interview with Mitchell; interview with Mark.

97 Interview with Shearer.

98 Interview with John Thomson, Clerk of FADT, 10 August 2016.

99 Interview with Mitchell.

100 Interview with Air Vice-Marshall Kevin Short, Vice Chief of Defence Force, 8 August 2016.

101 Interview with Defence officials, 9 August 2016.

102 Interview with Thomson; interview with senior Defence officials.

103 Interview with Short.

104 Interview with David Bennett, National Party MP, 11 August 2016.

105 Interview with Thomson.

106 Interview with Brownlee; interview with Mitchell.

107 Interview with Lieutenant General Tim Keating, Chief of Defence Force, 8 August 2016.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 Interview with Short.

111 Interview with Shearer.

112 Ibid.

113 Interview with Mitchell.

114 Interview with Thomson.

115 Interview with Thomson; interview with parliamentary staff, 12 August 2016.

116 Interestingly the CDF held that he would like FADT to have access to classified information in order to be able to better brief and inform them. Interview with Keating.

117 Interview with Mitchell; interview with Bennett.

118 Interview with members of FADT, 10 and 11 August 2016.

119 Interview with Mapp.

120 Interview with auditors from the Office of the Auditor-General, 12 August 2016.

121 Interview with Thomson; interview with Bennett.

122 Interview with Keating.

123 Hoffmann, Arthur and Longhurst, Kerry, ‘German strategic culture and the changing role of the Bundeswehr’, WeltTrends, 22 (1999), pp. 145–162.Google Scholar

124 Stephen Saideman with Takako Hikotani, ‘Japan in a More Dangerous World: Weak Civilian Control and Problematic Military Adaptation’, American Political Science Association conference, 30 August to 3 September 2017, San Francisco, California.

125 We are grateful to one of the reviewers for pointing out this challenge.