Integrity Index in the Palestinian Security Sector for 2022 — Third Report (March 2023)

- "The Coalition for Integrity and Accountability (AMAN) 2023 Integrity Index in the Security Sector for 2022 Third Report" Ramallah - Palestine

● As stated in the executive summary of the above report, the security sector is considered one of the most important public sectors in the state, which requires integrity, transparency, and accountability in its work, given the importance of its assigned role, and given its exclusive use of legitimate means of violence (weapons)...

● In this regard, the Integrity Index in the Palestinian Security Sector is a periodic description of the immunity of the security sector from corruption and its opportunities, and an attempt to create a (numerical expression) of the degree of resilience of the integrity system in the security sector... The index includes eighty indicators selected for their ability to measure the immunity of the security sector in Palestine to prevent corruption.

● The aim of this index is to assist public institutions in setting realistic plans to prevent corruption, identify risk factors and remedies, and govern institutions of the security sector.

● This index starts from the premise that the responsibility to combat corruption and to prevent its occurrence and spread is of such importance and weight that it requires the concerted efforts of everyone — citizens and institutions — and that it is impossible to combat it without approving the necessary strategies and plans, activating the legislative and legal framework regulating the work of the government, institutions and individuals, strengthening the role and capacities of all components of oversight work, pursuing and punishing perpetrators of corruption crimes, with the aim of reaching an integrity system that prevents corruption, particularly in the public sector.. Thus the Integrity Index in the Palestinian Security Sector constitutes "an attempt to create a numerical expression" of the degree of resilience of the integrity system in the security sector"

● The index has a single main numerical value that expresses the effectiveness of the integrity system in the security sector for the period under review; the Integrity Index in the security sector for the period between 1-1-2022 -31-12-2022 received a "Medium risk rating in terms of the risks that corrupt actors may exploit (61 points out of 100 points), and this score indicates that the integrity system in the Palestinian security sector remains worrying, as a result of a set of variables that continued to negatively affect its work during 2022, and generally it is still average..!"

● The detailed results for the eighty indicators in the index show a large variation in the scores each indicator received; while 23 indicators received a score of 100, which is the highest score an indicator can receive, however 12 indicators received a score of zero... which is the lowest score an indicator can receive, and 41 indicators (i.e., 51% of the total eighty indicators) received a score that falls within the classification (critical or very low, or low — that is, a score of 50 or less).!"

● In contrast, 39 indicators (i.e., 49% of the total indicators) received a score that falls within the classifications (Average, Advanced, and Very Advanced)

● The index score and its domains excluding external environment indicators

● The overall score of the Integrity Index in the security sector appears when the results of the indicators related to the external environment are not counted (the indicators related to the Legislative Council's oversight of the security sector and the approval of the general budget and the information concerning it, which are not the work of the security apparatuses so much as guarantees for the integrity system in the security sector).

● The results of the third reading also showed an increase in the average score of four of the five domains of the index, which are political will, the budget of the security sector, appointment, staff behavior, and oversight of intelligence agencies

- Political will — the average score for this domain is (score out of /100): 46, while the domain of the security sector budget had an average score of: 50, the procurement and tenders domain had an average score of: 78, regarding the domain of appointment and staff behavior its average score was: 73, and finally the average score for the domain of oversight of intelligence agencies reached: 38.. As for the overall average across all domains, it reached 61 (according to what was stated in the report)

● The report also lists the most prominent negative indicators on the integrity system in the security sector during this period, which are:

1- The absence of a Legislative Council, which led to paralysis of parliamentary oversight, including oversight of security agencies, discussion of security policies, approval of the general budget, including the security sector budget, and oversight of public expenditure.

2- The absence of an independent specialized committee to oversee the policies, management and budget of the intelligence agencies (parliamentary or governmental).

3- Continued non-enactment of legislation and the practice of the right of access to public information, and obtaining it with ease and simplicity, or cooperating to obtain it.

4- Weak procedures for regular consultations with the public on security sector policy and security strategy.

5- Lack of details and information about the stages of preparing the security sector budget before its approval, and weak availability of information requested by citizens, the media, and civil society about the security sector budget in a timely manner and during its implementation.

6- Absence of an information classification system that is consistent with the law to ensure the protection of information.

7- The government published the general budget law without details related to the security sector 2022

● The report also provided general conclusions, including:

-         

1- The Integrity Index in the security sector received a Medium classification, with slight improvement over the two previous readings, which indicates that the risks or opportunities for corruption are still possible, and that the integrity system in the security sector is still at an early stage and requires more steps to complete the conditions required to build an effective integrity system for this sector.

2- The index results made clear that the main problem and challenge facing the integrity system in the Palestinian security sector appears in practices that received a Medium classification more than in challenges in legislation due to its weakness or deficiency; it became clear that the greatest challenge lies in three domains related to the structure of the political system, the integrity of governance, its policies, and its vision for the role of security and mechanisms for supervising it, in the absence of the Legislative Council, which greatly affected the scores obtained by the integrity measures in the security sector, especially in oversight of the intelligence agencies and the supervision and oversight of the security sector budget....!

- It is worth mentioning that the report pointed to the institutional framework of the security sector, stating that the Palestinian security forces consist of the following security bodies:

● National Security Forces, Military Intelligence: the Judicial Police of the Palestinian Security Forces, the Presidential Guard, the Internal Security Forces, which is a regular security body that includes: the police, preventive security, civil defense, and the customs police, all of which perform their functions under the chairmanship of the Minister of Interior and under the leadership of the Director General of Internal Security.. General Intelligence, then the auxiliary bodies that provide support and assistance to the security apparatuses, such as: the Civil Service and Administration Authority, the Supply and Procurement Authority, the central "military" financial administration, military medical services, political guidance, the military training authority

● The report indicates that the majority of these bodies lack a legal basis that regulates their work and defines their competencies...!