Over the last few years, there has been increased debate about the size and spending on the military in Lebanon. With the mounting economic problems facing the country today, this question has frequently popped up and is leading to a division of opinions. Each of the parties presents certain figures to buttress their claim and to justify their positions on the issue. So, what is the reality of this expenditure, its size and purpose?

Total revenues and expenditures of the government

Total revenues as per budgets 1993 - 2001 were LL 34,800 billion ($23 billion) and total expenditures for the same period were LL 70,580 billion ($46.8 billion). These revenues and expenditures are divided over the years, as shown in Table 1.

Government Revenues & Expenditures


 

Military Forces expenditure

Total military expenditures that our study dealt with include the army, military, Internal Security Forces (ISF), Public Security Forces (PSF) and State Security. Total expenditures for these forces was LL 10, 726 billion or $7 billion (See Table 2). Expenditures of the parliamentary police and those responsible for customs were not taken into consideration as the nature of their responsibilities is different.

The above expenditures represent 14.7% of total budget expenses, or 30.8% of revenues during the period under study. What can be noted is that the expenditures on the army alone represented 70.43% of these expenditures, the ISF 22.83%, the PSF 4.9% and the state security forces 1.84%.

Nature of expenditures

Expenditures are distributed over several areas but the largest portion is on wages and benefits, representing 82%, while the cost of the expenditures on arms and military equipment was only 18%.

Wages and benefits include salaries of permanent and part-time personnel, personnel working on a contract basis, transportation and education allowances, medical benefits, and overtime, among others. The figures over the last ten years are noted in Table 3.

Retirement Salaries and end-of-service indemnities

Law No. 718, dated November 5, 1998, determines salary scales for military personnel in the army, the ISF, PSF, State Security forces and customs, and a basis for calculation of pensions and severance pay.

End-of-service indemnities, which are paid as a lump sum upon retirement, and pensions that are paid on a monthly basis are classified under a special category of ‘Compensation for Military and Civilians’. (See Tables 4 and 5)

Retirement Salaries and end-of-service Indemnities for Military Personnel (2001 - 2002)

Retirement Salaries and end-of-service Indemnities for Civilian Personnel

As for the years 1993 - 2000, the total amount for all the retirees (military and civil) amounted to LL 3,751 billion or $2.4 billion (Table 5).

Based on the previously mentioned percentage of 67.4% (as per Table 4), it shows that retired military personnel have taken LL 2,528 billion ($1.6 billion) as end-of-service indemnities and pension payments over an eight-year period (as per Table 5). Using the same percentage for the years 2001 -2002, the total figure for the ten-year period reaches LL 3, 733.5 billion ($2.4 billion).

Two opposing views

There are those who believe that military expenditure cannot be considered the primary reason for the economic crisis and increased public debt as it amounts to 14.7% of total budget expenditures, a figure almost equal to the expenditures of the office of the Prime Minister and agencies and organizations related to it.

Also, comparisons between wages of the military and other civil employees of the government seem to be the same and even lower than those working in other public institutions.

However, critics of military expenditure point to the above figures as too high, and indicate the elevated number of indemnities as prime factors in the country’s economic slump.

They also note that interest paid on the debt between 1993 and 2002 is estimated to be in the region of LL 32,430 billion ($21 billion) and military expenditures represent 33% of the cost of debt service.

However, the debate should not focus on where to lay the blame, but how to restructure the public sector. In the case of the military, the problem seems to lie in the number of personnel, rather than in the level of wages, as well as the fact that retired military personnel receive end-of-service indemnities and pensions together.