Workshop on Security Sector Governance in...

Workshop on Security Sector Governance

in Africa

Elmina, Ghana 24-26 November 2003

by Anícia Lalá & Riefqi Muna

Organised by

African Security Dialogue and Research (ASDR) in collaboration with the

Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Part of the ASDR PROJECT ON SECURITY SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA

GFN Paper 33

26 January 2004

2

Workshop on Security Sector Governance in Africa

Security Sector Governance (SSG) in Africa was the theme of a workshop that took place from the 24-26 November, 2003, at Elmina, Ghana, under the auspices of Africa Dialogue and Security Research (ASDR), with the support of the Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR) and jointly funded by the UK Government (Africa Conflict Prevention Pool) and the Special Initiative for Africa from the Ford Foundation. Participation and speakers included academics as well as practitioners from both NGOs and Government. Also in attendance were representatives of various security sector areas, namely defence, police and intelligence from a range of regions, including Southern, East and West Africa, Europe and North America. The agenda covered a multitude of subjects within the governance theme, rendering the programme valuable, instructive and enriching the debates. Among the subjects were International and Regional Perspectives on Security Sector Governance, Governance of Police and Policing, Governance of Intelligence and Governance of the Armed Forces. (See link to the agenda). The workshop was inaugurated by the Honourable John Akudibillah, Deputy Minister of Defence who spoke about the timeliness of the workshop and its constructive approach to the governance of the security sector. He praised the initiative as a vehicle for raising awareness, deepening knowledge and debating perspectives, whilst acknowledging that such a major study with diversified experiences from a variety of countries and a multitude of sectors was important for understanding the malaise of African states regarding this theme. The first day was devoted to the sessions about Governing Security in Africa, International and regional Perspectives on SSG, Governance of Police and Policing and governance of Intelligence. The presentations were followed by a heightened debate from the point of view of academic perspectives, policy implications and concrete realities from the country studies presented. Eboe Hutchful presented the conference concept paper which set-up the framework for the debate on SSG in the first session about Governing Security in Africa. He characterised the general African countries’ state of affairs as one in which there is a breakdown of democratic authority, excessive military and security spending, lack of sustainability of democratisation processes and human rights, and constant violation of the rights of the citizens due to the absence of public security. He then continued to elaborate on the existence of four main traditions for policy analysis, which merited the attention of this workshop, but were to be complemented by an SSG approach. These traditions are civil-military relations, global reform and relation between security and development,

http://www.gfn-ssr.org/edocs/gfn_ssg_ghana_agenda_2003.pdf

3


good governance and the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) (having as an entry point military expenditure (MILEX), structural adjustment programmes (SAP) and poverty reductions strategy papers (PRSP)) and finally, the African struggles to achieve democracy and attempts to overcome authoritarianism. Professor Hutchful suggested that, concerning the security concept, state security, regime security and human security, as different entry points to the analysis of security, reveal the tensions existent between the three approaches and the correspondent realities. Despite these tensions on whether the focus should be, respectively, on the state, on the governing elite or on the people, a grounding fact remains however that public goods must be delivered by the state, although implying co-operation between various other societal actors. With regard to understanding the sector, he mentioned that the security sector must not only be conceived widely to integrate uniformed forces, but also those institutions that hold a control function over them. Together they constitute a “security community”. The underlying aim of the project involved the understanding of the institutional dynamics, concerning its characteristics, mechanisms, relationships, commonalities and differences. The chosen approach to SSG instead of security sector reform (SSR) or security sector transformation (SST) was justified because SSR and SST can both be applied to different contexts, in relation to a situation where institutions are functioning and only need a revision and at most re-structuring (SSR), or to a situation where there is a need to build afresh (SST). However, SSG can be applied generally, independently of the stage characterising the sector. Governance was argued as important due to the fact that:

• there is a need for a legitimate public authority;

• it is more inclusive than the concept of civilian and democratic control;

• it is constitutive of partnerships between the military and civilian institutions;

• the concept of democratic governance is more tangible as to policy implications (accountability, rule of law and transparency);

• the same principles that are applied to other sectors are also applicable to the security sector;

4


• it is broader in the sense that it accommodates discussion about the impact of post-conflict, “poor” democracies, and the context of economic weakness, with poverty reduction priorities.

Robin Luckham reiterated Hutchful’s ideas on the concept of security and the need to extricate the concepts of state, regime, citizen or human security and understand how the operationalisation of one is potentially harmful to the other if we do not strive for balance. On the concept of sector he went further and explained that there is a need to understand not only the internal division of labour within the sector, but also its relationships with other sectors and with the state as a whole. The security sector was presented as including simultaneously a state sector, part of the apparatus of government, an economic sector, with an output of ‘security’, requiring inputs from the rest of the economy, and with an impact on development and a social sector with deep societal roots and potentially profound impacts on social values and behaviour, including attitudes to violence. He argued that the same values of governance and respective principles applied to the security sector should also bind the rest of government, especially when security institutions have been involved in coups, repressive government, extra-judicial killings, human rights abuses etc. The speaker complemented his presentation by focusing on the following contradictions of governance of the security sector which create tensions in Africa:

• Tensions between the need to root out legacies of authoritarian rule and obstruction and resistance by military/security institutions (e.g. Chile).

• Resolving tensions between state security and citizen or human security (they are interdependent but also potentially contradictory).

• Ambiguities and tensions over the boundaries between ‘external’ and ‘internal’ security, including the division of labour between the armed forces, police and other security bodies.

• Resolving potential tensions between democratic accountability and control and military professionalism and discipline.

• Placing acceptable limits on state secrecy, while recognising confidentiality may sometimes be necessary.

• Resolving the potential contradictions between democracy and the rule of law and the use of force to deal with security threats (e.g. Northern Ireland, and the current ‘war on terrorism’).

Balancing the need for law enforcement with due process and the rule of

5


law. The impunity or truth and reconciliation debate: balancing accountability for human rights violations against conflict-resolution and national reconciliation. Peacekeeping and peace enforcement: rules of engagement to balance the need for operational effectiveness with respect for human rights and international law. The presentation was finalised with the argument that informal power relations can also be creative drivers of change, as in the case of many democratic transitions in Africa, which resulted from an intensive mobilisation in civil and political society. Pressures from the latter were viewed as crucial to keep SSG on track. The triangular relationship between the security of the state, of the regime and of the people was the first issue in the discussion that followed. It was argued that there is a need for a minimum security of the regime, so that this can allow the security of the state and a mutually reinforcing, instead of exclusionary pattern. Although the boundaries of regime security and state security might become blurred, there is a pressing need for leaders to understand that regime security must imply both state and people security. The priority in that equation lies on who controls the decision-making, and a balance between formal and informal distribution of power has to be achieved, since the consequences will impact on the three levels. Moreover, it was advocated that regime security was directly correlated with the sub-regional organisation attitudes and prevailing situation at the level of global security and transnational relations impact. As to the prevalence of societal security or individual security, it was said to be a contextual bounded issue, since security perceptions are changing especially with the situation lived by Israel-Palestine. The link between the discussion on SSG, SSR and Arms Control/Disarmament was stated to be vital, but one that rarely is raised, because those countries which foster the agenda of SSR are also those who have renewed interest in selling weapons, and do it without analysing the contexts, often creating more destabilisation. Other issues raised concerned the fact that for SSR to be undertaken the military consent must be achieved first, though a need for their role to be demystified remains outstanding, since there are other dimensions to security, which involve a plethora of actors. In transitional situations the dilemma between implementing the rule of law and impunity is always present posing a difficulty for reforms, when the

6


need for reconciliation implies a compromise to be achieved. Constantine Danopoulos intervened in the second session relative to International and Regional Perspectives on Security Sector Governance. He started by raising the profile of the issues of identity, culture and language in the discussion of security and went on to characterise the security sector reform process in the Eastern Block. He argued that three components were crucial in this process: “depoliticisation”, “departisation” and democratisation of the military. “Depoliticisation” meant that the military had to retrieve from ‘everyday’ politics; “departisation” meant that the military were serving the state and not the party or the regime. i.e., they had to be de-communised and democratisation meant they had to obey a popular elected parliament and had to professionalise. The process also implied the instalment of both civilian and democratic control and the emergence of independent research think tanks to support the process. Latin America followed with the presentation of Francisco Aravena who started by characterising the region as being diverse, with a prevalence of military dictatorships, ongoing democratisation processes and reforms under the ‘Washington Consensus’, a prevalence of 44% of poverty which is the main concern on the actual agenda and a high dependency of the U.S.A. He argued that the 9’11 factor is having a negative impact in terms of governance in the regions as under the banner of fight against terrorism regimes are abusing citizens’ rights. It was explained that the security agenda of the region includes both old type threats like open border conflicts (16 ongoing) as well as new threats related to state reconstruction in post-conflict theatres, like Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), among others. The implications of the new global security scenario were pointed out as being the search for co-operative answers instead of unilateralism, the attempt to respect democracy and human rights, the adaptation to deal with both old and new threats and the quest for stability and democratic governance. Riefqi Muna introduced the Asian perspective by arguing that the discussion about SSG in Asia lags well behind that existent in Africa. It was explained that state security is still dominant on the agenda, although the human rights discussion is slowly shaping-up. The region main concerns have been related to development. However, development has been understood as growth and growth brings stability. To achieve and maintain this stability the regimes have to use repression. This understanding originates a vicious circle difficult to break. In speaking about Indonesia he stated that there is still resistance to western concepts though the society is not militarised as in Latin America. There is nonetheless the prevalence of a

7


dual function held by the military, i.e., a security function but also an economic and social role. One of the remaining challenges is to demilitarise the police and depoliticise the military, i.e., to clarify and separate their roles. The country has evolved from total crisis to total reform, but the extent of reform is questionable since the civil society and the expertise available are fragile as well as the understanding of the population about this problem. Nicole Ball argued that role of external actors, particularly donors in the context of countries undergoing reform processes, have a poor record of success. She went on to state that the donors can offer valuable support if they act in partnership with the Government in question. Donors tend to approach the issues in terms of project instead of the context and that limits the process. The support to police and justice areas is growing. However the assistance to legislative oversight remains limited, and the resistance to engage with the military is still prominent. The panel discussion focused on the role of the armed forces and it was argued that the nature of its institution was contradictory to that of democracy, so tensions are to be expected in such a transition. Arguments revolved around the fact that the military are also part of society and as such should be entitled to vote, safeguarded that they keep their preferences to themselves and do not express it in public, especially when uniformed. Another major issue was about the ‘need’ for expertise to engage in reform. Some argued that people know the concrete changes they need to see in their lives and in the behaviour of the security forces and that suffices to have public understanding and gather support. Others referred to the factor that without the necessary expertise the risk of manipulation is higher and usually prevails in accordance with the will of the regime in place. The panel on Governance of Police and Policing followed with Elrena van der Spuy presenting the case of South Africa. She argued that access to security has increased over time with the democratisation of the security sector and that in her country a higher prioritisation of resources needs to be made to deal with gender issues. It was mentioned that the pacted transition in South Africa implied, at the beginning, a relative consensus concerning the need for Police accountability. The reforms in the police started in 1990 with the anticipation of change. Pragmatic assessments of the operational effectiveness of civilian oversight mechanisms succeeded in identifying various deficiencies confronting the elaborate institutional machinery for police accountability. Examples of such deficiencies include the problem of overlapping mandates, the absence of coordination across institutions, and limited institutional capacity on the part of oversight mechanisms. However, a social hostile environment prevails today and the

8


experience of community policing enacted different perceptions, with obvious problems related to the demand for local accountability. A new siege mentality has been developing on the part of the civil society in relation to the police and the police perception of this phenomenon begins to challenge the debate about accountability. The Ghanaian experience was brought to the audience by Raymond Atuguba who argued that the Police reform attempts that existed were marked by experimentalism and pragmatism resulting in very few changes since the colonial period. He stressed the difficulty to access information and to draw parallels from other cases. The law, according to the speaker, protects tradition, the political regime and the rule of law. Currently policing is moved by the need to attract foreign investment and the governing process occurs through the criminalization of social behaviour. Kemi Asiwaju shared with us the experience of Nigeria, which apparently possesses institutions and legislative apparatus in place for democratic oversight, though the bureaucracy seems to be an impeditive for an effective process. According to her the police service commission who is in the best position to exert oversight and also make the police accountable to the civil society is grappling with problems of resources, delegation of powers, lack of clarity in the legislative framework as to their investigative powers, political intervention, among others. The challenge in Nigeria remains to create a higher degree of citizen involvement in exercising oversight and a higher commitment from the Government to ensure better policies and support for existing institutions.

Some basic tenets of oversight were exposed by Alice Hills who spoke about trends in police oversight in Africa. She reminded us that oversight is slow and difficult to achieve, that a contextual awareness must exist about the links between the police and communities and that oversight is recognised as an important aspect of reconciliation. However, there is usually the need for a trade-off when wanting to combat crime and attain oversight simultaneously. It was argued that oversight has different meanings to different societies, implying the need to be careful with the transference of models. The record of police reform in Africa appears to be poor and as such, it might be that reform is not really occurring, but rather that these countries are only adapting to donor policies. She emphasised that effective oversight needs to be both formal and informal and that while it remains to be seen whether oversight can make policing more efficient or effective, the lack of trust between police and their societies is a fundamental issue inhibiting efficient policing.

Otwin Marenin made the last presentation of the session. He reinforced the

9


idea that a bargain between the security forces and the society is needed and is crucial to the governance of the sector. In his opinion good management is an indispensable component of good governance but any effort to democratise policing systems after authoritarian rule demands a deep knowledge of the practices, cultures and politics of policing and the local politics. On the other hand, not less important are the interests of domestic and international reformers seeking change. The discussion that followed revolved around the need for ownership of the reforms by the grassroots, if they are to succeed. Corruption, linked to the payments of inadequate salaries and the association of the police with criminal groups were all raised as factors that occur because of and contribute to further the weakness of the institution. Mention was given to the fact that the francophone system of police differs considerably from the anglophone, and that there might be lessons to take from examining the francophone system. In the last place the role of sub regional groups like SARPCCO, EARPCCO and WARPCCO were raised and praised as genuine efforts for dealing with transnational crime adequately. Dennis Dlomo was the first speaker of the session on Intelligence and exposed the case of South Africa. He explained that nowadays the intelligence mission is linked to the sub regional stability and is regulated by the Strategic Intelligence Act. In South Africa the oversight of the area is relatively robust and mechanisms exist at the Executive, Judicial and Civilian levels. The public has also been supportive of the process of enhancing oversight and accountability by highlighting plaudits to the intelligence services when deserved and being adversarial when they have acted outside the law and the constitution. These oversight structures have the right to conduct reviews and enquiries, produce reports and hold responsible and accountable public officials. Much has been done since the changes operated in 1994, but the process is still underway. The Ghanaian case was presented by Johnny Kwadjo who argued that the concept of National Security as been used with multiple connotations, in order to allow governments and decision makers to manipulate it to legitimate their own agenda. In some cases it is even used to preclude public scrutiny, thus harming accountability. The role played by access to information is determinant in the intelligence arena, in order to improve the quality of decision ‘making and of the action to follow. Some information can be gathered in public sources, but other has to be from secret sources meaning that a certain degree of restriction has to be maintained in relation to certain documentation.

10


The Ghanaian Constitution establishes under its article 83 a National Security Council that includes the positions of Director of External Intelligence, Director of Internal Intelligence and Director of Military Intelligence. This legislative disposition is indeed beneficial insofar as precludes the existence of any other agency for these matters. The discussion on this panel focused on the oversight mechanisms and the need for them to become credible. It was stated that part of the process of creating and maintaining credibility lay in institutionalisation. The Intelligence sector was seen as constituting the “eyes and ears” of the State and therefore it needed to be properly controlled to avoid abuse of human rights. Oversight of the Intelligence is also related to leadership, resources, expertise and permanent engagement of the civil society as a watchdog. The Intelligence agencies exist to promote and protect the national interest, but the real question to be posed is “what are national interests, who defines them and on the basis of what priorities?”. Democratising the Intelligence sector meant for some that it is also necessary to address the concern upon “how to intercept information without intervening in the privacy of people”, what renders the professional conduct (operational) of intelligence gathering very crucial. The example of the Intelligence White Paper of South Africa was very useful according to the participants, in terms of promotion of the balance between state-people and secrecy-openness. The second day sessions addressed Governance of the Armed Forces in different political contexts in Africa. On Post-Coup Militaries the cases of Mali, Nigeria, Lesotho, Benin and Ghana were presented. On Transition from civilian semi-democracies experiences from Kenya, Botswana and Senegal were shared. On Post-conflict and post-revolutionary militaries in Southern Africa: Namibia, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe were the contemplated countries. Finally on Post-conflict, post-revolutionary militaries in East and West Africa the cases of Rwanda, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone merited discussion. These sessions provided very rich discussions due to the wide comparative perspective and educational nature of the case studies. Looking at each country societal and political history, a clear sign becomes evident, i.e., how the security sector is transformed and governed ultimately relates to the trajectory of the democratisation process. The first session that took place was that on Post-Coup Militaries and was initiated by Anatole Ayissi whose presentation begun with the elaboration of the historical context of the Armed Forces in Mali, from 1960 to the present. To understand the current state of governance of the armed forces one has to look at the problem of civil-military relations, since current practices are influenced by the historical legacy of the nation. A special emphasis was given to the periods between 1969, when the army was

11


present in the public scene, and 1974 (the new constitution); and 1991 (appraisal) when the government was overthrown in a coup and replaced with a transitional committee. In 1991 a new constitution was approved installing a multiparty democracy and Mali’s first democratically elected president. In the early 1990s the Malian army was engaged in conflicts with the Tuaregs that rebelled against alleged government, and following an upsurge in violence in 1994, a peace settlement was implemented in 1995. Several lessons can be learned from Mali where the armed forces cooperated with the civil society to sustain peace and a division of labour was achieved concerning the management of the security sector; where the army showed it existed not to protect the regime but the nation (la securite de la nation, enshrined in their Code of Conduct); where promotion of professionalisation of the armed forces took place and they proceeded being neutral vis-à-vis the political life. Furthermore, this was a case where the International Community provided resources and acted with good will. Colonel Nouhoun Sangare complemented the previous presentation by reviewing the role of the armed forces in the democratisation process occurring in Mali. He argued that if in the Second and Third Republics the military did enough to destroy the country, in a democratic Mali the army must contribute positively for the nation and should ask the people of Mali for forgiveness. However, the road to democracy needed to deal with the culture of violence, where every political party had military wings, before overcoming it. Nowadays the code of conduct is significantly important to promote SSG, as for example, a soldier now knows he has the right to disobey to an illegal order. Mathurin C. Houngnikpo who highlighted several points about the governance dimension exposed the case of Benin. In his view security is directly linked to development and a “minimum security” is a basic condition for development to take place. SSG in Africa concerns also the issue of civil-military relations and a transition from below is important, but the outstanding question is: “how empowered is civil society”? He argued that democratising the security sector is a painful process, until the military give their consent. Benin was experiencing difficulties with several coups until 1972, when the regime was bankrupt and the military changed the government and brought to power Major Mathieu Kérékou. He professed strict Marxist-Leninist principles and remained in power until the beginning of the 90s, when a National Conference was held to find a political solution for the crisis in Benin. Most military were rejecting the conference, but Kérékou agreed, due to external pressure. Benin was thus the first African country to successfully implement a transition from dictatorship to a pluralistic political system. However, Mr. Houngnikpoo recognised that civil

12


society is weak and that in the current regime, there are still difficulties in building trust. The cultural basis for democracy did not exist and the promotion of democracy in Africa also needs to imply a component of demilitarisation of the society and address security in a comprehensive way. Security sector governance in Nigeria was presented by Kayode Fayemi, who highlighted three points to be considered, i.e., the historical, sociological and overall political environment. He addressed the “rush transition” with the death of Abacha in 1998, and stated that until this date the credibility of civil society continues at stake since they remain militarised demonstrating a lack of interest in dialogue. Post-military governance needs to deal with the legacy of history and the overall political context, while institutionalising the process of reform as the foundation to move ahead. He raised the question about the extent to which it is possible to make the military a-political. The psychology of militarism and militarism in society are important issues to be addressed, as they will determine the role of civil society in SSR. In his opinion the Parliament is only functioning as a rubber stamp and no real oversight or democratic governance takes place. Nigeria will need to have the role and mission of each force within the security sector well defined, since at present the armed forces intervene in the management of internal security due to the lack of capability of the police. Currently Nigeria needs a grand strategy for its national security. Eboe Hutchful, who adopted a strong approach to institutional analysis, explained the historical context of security sector governance in Ghana in-depth. The speaker addressed the existent capacity of civilians to manage a security sector in which there is a need to consider both “software” and “hardware”, which interact in a dialectical relationship. Militarization was said to have left legacies such as a dysfunctional security sector, the erosion of fragile instruments for civil control and an anxiety in the way of approaching the civil-security interface, preventing a learning curve. Demilitarisation is thus crucial, but the ineffectiveness of civilian management of the military institution remains a residual problem in the post-authoritarian regime. On the other hand, the more critical reflections about governance emerge from the armed forces and not from the civil society. In this situation there is a need to address more drastically the promotion of SSG. This implies the elaboration of different formal and informal mechanisms for security sector management and the Constitution should significantly enhance these mechanisms as the basis new civil-military relations. In the debate the need to study similarities and differences between the francophone and anglophone tradition of organisation of the security sector in Africa emerged as the main point. Discussions were also held on the need to see also the positive contributions of the Armed Forces when they

13


perform a developmental role. It was stressed that it is misleading to assume that the absence of the military in power immediately leads to democracy and therefore the need for empowering civil society, in order to promote security sector reform and democracy in general. The discussion also focused on the role of education to improve SSG in the future. The session on Transition from civilian semi-democracies started with the contribution of Emmanuel Rene Moise who spoke about Senegal. His presentation started with the historical background of the country, since the separation of Senegal from Mali Federation and Sudan in 1962. Unlike other African countries, Senegal kept the military away from politics and did not have a coup experience. The military has been performing the role of watchdog of the republic; the country has been democratic for many years and the factor governance is present within the armed forces. The armed forces have used its technical expertise and have applied it to socio-economic activities, which include operating 60% of the health services. Kenya and Botswana were both presented by Boubacar N’Diaye who reminded us of the difficulty to find material about these countries. He started by introducing the state of the security sector governance in the two countries. An explanation was given about the importance of regional practices of SSG in Africa, both for the development of regional institutions and national security practices. It was argued that the main challenge in terms of SSG remains the difference between expectation and the reality on the ground. This is complex in nature and differs from one country to another. The evolution of SSG and defence policy in Botswana for example, is highly dictated by its geography, while in Kenya the historical factor has more weight. Thus, there has to be caution in generalising when addressing SSG and a clear understanding of terminology such as de-politicisation and de-partisation is needed. Concerning transition from civilian semi-democracies and as regards the role of the armed forces, Kenya and Botswana shared similar experiences. Another relevant factor is the ethnic composition of the armed forces and of the bureaucracy, in general, which will have direct impact on stability. In the Kenyan case, President Arap Moi, for example, has been accused of “Kikuyusation” in Kenya, since he came from the Kikuyu ethnic group. In both countries the tendency for concentration of the security sector issues in the office of the President is high and the parliament has very weak powers in this area. The debate recognised that despite the country differences a tendency for concentration of security matters under the aegis of the President’s Office was negative, although it might constitute the strong pillar for stability in the concerned cases.

14


On Post-conflict and post-revolutionary militaries in Southern Africa, the case of Namibia showed how the history of Apartheid impacted strongly on this country until independence in 1990. Guy Lamb argued that the civilian governance of the armed forces has been facilitated through a combination of legal mechanisms, oversight of the armed forces budgets by the legislature, a civilian dominated Ministry of Defence, and the maintenance of a small professional military. However, over the past five years, a number of episodes reveal that this civilian governance of the armed forces is deficient and problems such as human rights abuse, especially by field forces, and paramilitary units are mounting. Brigadier Paulino Macaringue spoke about the case of Mozambique explaining that the country was first post-revolutionary and then post-conflict, which represented differences from the other cases when addressing security sector governance. He explained that a total divorce from the colonial army structures and men occurred at the time of independence and that organic links had been established between the society and the army of liberation in the so called “liberated zones”. Afterwards it was the internal conflict, which marked this relationship, and the new army had to deal with the integration of both ex-rebels and ex-governmental troops, impacting negatively on efficiency. In legislative terms there is progress from 1975 when no defence law existed and at present the parliament has also a role to play in terms of oversight. Despite this the civil society remains weak and the remaining structures such as the civilian ministry of defence need to be reinforced. The South African case was presented by Rocky Williams who argued that the main concern was to answer the basic question on “why” the need for oversight of the military. Therefore, control can be positive, constructive or negative. Civilian control according to some is “nonsense”, but civil control must exist, however without identifying the adequate model for a specific society the whole process is put at risk. Civil-military relations not always are democratic or imply the maintenance of dialogue and trust between the civilian and the military. There is a need for commitment from both sides, since distrust can drive the military to stage coups. It was also stressed that the context, culture and history determine civil-military relations in Africa, and one should not just follow the European or American model, but search for an African foundation. Zimbabwe was presented as another case in which the liberation struggle had great impact with the war being used for political means. This, according to Martin Rupiya shaped the civil-military relations, with the establishment of the separation of powers from the very beginning, since independence. The speaker argued that three main questions were

15


important in the context of Zimbabwe: first, what is the identity and constitution of the military? Second, how has the military force evolved in the post-independent period? Third, how can the civilian control mechanisms in Zimbabwe be enhanced, reformed and expanded? The panel on Post-conflict, post-revolutionary militaries in East and West Africa took place with Oswald Rudakemwa elaborating on the context of Rwanda. Three main ethnic groups, the Tutsi, Bahutu and Batwa, comprise the country’s population. Rwanda suffered from the colonial politics of “weakening” the army along the ethnic divide, preventing it from gaining a national character. The then Belgium colony set up the army with 80% Bahutu comprising the troops. Thus, the historical context and the clan colonial policy played a crucial role in the conflict undergone by the country, where the ethnic rivalry between Bahutu and Batutsi originated the genocide. Due to this situation, the development the country must be based on reconciliation, in order to achieve a reduction of the negative collective memory. General Tsadkan Gebre started his presentation by elaborating on the armed struggle in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian army was created to protect the Crown and then during Mengistu rule its role was to protect the Marxist-Leninist regime. The Ethiopian army was formed from the guerrilla movement (17 years), its ideology was leftist and the structure was typical of Marxist regimes, relying on political secrecy. The decision-making was centralised in the hands of a very small group that was extremely powerful. It is important to note that the armed struggles occurred in undemocratic environments, so it was consequential that the armed forces assumed such a character after achieving power. The new Constitution from 1995 provided a basic foundation for an a-political army. However, this institution became the centre for the power battleground. Al-Hassan Kondeh introduced us to the experience of Sierra Leone stating that exercising democratic governance over the military in Sierra Leone has been a problem since independence. Sierra Leone was unfortunate in relation to good governance, since the post-independent and republican era had suffered threats not only from economic and social factors but also from the dysfunctional civil-military relations, especially the absence of an effective civilian oversight of the armed forces. The politicisation of the military has been undermining professionalism and its traditional defence role, leading to the destruction of the esprit-de-corps and creating mistrust among the serving personnel. The coup of 1992 was an attempt to change the situation, but was followed by the complete destruction of the command structure of the armed forces. The government returned from exile with the support of the international community and planned to put in place a

16


restructuring and reform of the military. However, to bring radical changes big challenges had to be faced, namely, the fact that the reform was externally driven, and the inexperience of the civilians placed to manage the defence and security sector, the weak civilian oversight and the mutual mistrust between civilians and military officers. The joint discussion on the two panels devoted attention to the comparison between Post-authoritarian regimes, which have undergone military rule and those who had not. The cases where military rule was not experienced correlated strongly with the experience of having undergone liberation struggles. In the same way, military rule seemed not to have occurred where socialist one party regimes were in power. Clearly, a different pattern of civil-military relations existed which nowadays impacts on the environment for SSG and SSR. Two issues of contention were the lack of personal commitment of people wearing uniform as regards the reforms in the security sector and the principle of “non partisanship” to be promoted in a democratic context. It was challenged that the military did not want reforms as the contrary was demonstrated by the cases of Ghana, Benin and Mali. Nevertheless, caution was always recommendable as this will for reform could imply other agendas, like obtaining higher budget allocations. As to the non-partisanship debate, the difficulties inherent in assessing the a-political nature of the military render this argument dubious, according to some participants. In addition, concern was expressed about income generating activities developed by the armed forces and the need to establish adequate mechanisms to promote governance. It was argued that in the case of Rwanda the existing problem cannot simply be resolved without reconciliation, and the creation of mixed and ethnic balanced security forces/police by the government is not a sufficient measure to deal with the trauma. A general lesson was therefore the need to promote united armed forces and to detribalise African armed forces. The last session of the conference occurred under the heading of ”The way forward: Understanding and transforming SSG in Africa: the Role of Networking, Advocacy and Research “and allowed an opportunity for a conference debriefing by every participant that wanted to share views on the achievements of the project and how it could be improved. The discussion facilitated by Robin Luckham started with Eboe Hucthful’s intervention stating that SSG is the last obstacle to democratisation. He explained that the project and papers presented aimed at understanding the nature and configuration of SSG in Africa. According to the speaker the project is still in the first phase of research and advocacy and activism are the subsequent stages. He acknowledged that some papers focused only in one area/fragment of SSG, but that altogether they constitute inputs for holistic analysis. Another major contribution, in his view, was that this is a specific

17


form of knowledge that had been produced, conceptualised and owned by Africans, making a difference from the majority of works on governance that originate from a western tradition. There was also a positive achievement insofar as a gap was bridged between academics and practitioners, since the authorship of the papers and the participation was mixed. Some papers needed to be slightly adapted to mainstream the oversight component that had only been touched tangentially, and others needed a closer institutional analysis focusing on frameworks, actors and processes, including both formal and informal dynamics. The project has a normative dimension and therefore values have to be underlined throughout the analysis. Finally, one of the aims was to produce a registry of security sector legislation existent in Africa, by creating a repository of documents, and for that all the authors that had not brought the materials should do so as well as revise their papers and hand-in by the first of March of 2004. Dent Ocaya-Lakidi followed by highlighting the diversity of expertise present in the conference and the opportunity to learn about the countries. Patterns were able to emerge concerning common features in Africa, and these were personalisation, tribalisation and weak civil societies. In his opinion the “why” questions still needed a response in many of the cases presented and authors should pay more attention to this when redrafting the papers. He believed it to be too early to talk about gaps since this is groundbreaking work. However it was clear that a leadership/management/administration component was missing, one still needed to find ways of translating all this work into the community level and to create alternative models to the ones existent, since these are mostly Western. The speaker argued that the presentations reflected the reality, insofar as the existence of very few researchers in this area, the result being that in many cases the emphasis was on political systems rather than in governance. Media and governance (both positive and negative impacts) and the sub regional dimensions were issues pointed out by Anícia Lalá as being absent or very poorly developed in the papers. A suggestion emerged concerning the elaboration of a sub-regional paper on SSG in West Africa, once all the relevant papers for that matter were ready. The links into the regional and sub-regional approaches would demonstrate the weaknesses, limitations and challenges of pursuing a governance agenda. Attention was also brought by the speaker to the fact that socio-economic aspects need to be intertwined in the analysis as they help to answer the “why” question mentioned by the previous orator. The linkage into donor conditionality and how that impacted on the relationship between the military and the society and policy-making was seen as a crucial point to take into account especially in the country-

18


studies. An effort to contextualize the whole debate into the global governance paradigm should be made in order to question the latter’s agenda in the face of the local reality and needs. Another missing area of research that could be explored in the historical context of the countries was said to be that of the traditional and pre-modern elements of organising security in those societies and the impact caused in them by colonialism, in order to partially help understand the changes and continuities, as well as institutions’ memory (when this exists), their legitimacy, and communities attitudes to certain changes under the governance arena. Lastly a point was made that the interconnectedness between the defence, police and justice areas, in terms of reform and governance, were practically absent or very loosely made in the papers, whenever that was the case. William Anguille detected that the rivalry between various actors in the security sector had not been explored in the papers. He also suggested that there is a need to study the policies of recruitment into the armed forces in order to understand the identities of those in it. A big missing component was the gender aspect. He gave a positive note in the sense that the workshop constituted a major step for the start to overcome the lack of communication between people working in the same sector. The fact that this discussion occurs mainly in contexts of democratisation should be highlighted according to Elrena van der Spuy. Also, the fact that the governance of security is related to the governance of justice needs to be more clearly outspoken and studied as have the fact that the transitions force the renegotiation of boundaries between the military and the police. The micro politics of the institutions need to be grasped as well as the formal and informal networks of non-state actors. General Tsadkan stated he benefited from the workshop in his position as a practitioner because it could compare cases and integrate realities. His main concern was that the studies should ultimately explain how a better governance of the sector would help tackle poverty and unemployment. The interaction and dialogue from people of different backgrounds and experience enriched his knowledge. The discussion raised the need for empirical work to inform the conceptual tools in development. Training of the security forces in these matters was seen as crucial, within the adequate context applicable to their region and country. Collaborative work was deemed necessary especially in East and Central Africa where there is a major role to be played by both academics and practitioners, in order to promote dialogue, reconciliation and demythologise the relations between the respective countries and peoples. It raised the issue of donor dependency and announced the fact that a major

19


work is being done under a SIPRI project in which Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs) and Off-budget expenditure in African countries are analysed. The need to link in the research work into the policy process, especially at the continental level was stressed. A major point was that in different ways throughout the continent, attempts to reform and to improve governance are occurring although not always labelled under the conceptual designation of SSG. The discussion turned into an open session where various participants expressed their views. Francisco Aravena stated that similarities existed with the ongoing debate in Latin America (LA). These were: the thematic of civil-military relations, the issue of “departisation” and “depoliticisation” and the subject of transformation. However, differences were also spotlighted. He said that though Africa is a high incidence of conflict one did not see the same level of police, military or even private security deployment in the streets as happens in Latin America and which demonstrates the higher degree of insecurity and militarization of the societies. There was an absence of discussion on globalisation and the impact of the international system of governance in national governance, as well as of the role of external actors that have a considerable presence in LA. He argued that the war on terror and the influence of the homeland security of the US and their changing policies are major issues in LA as is integration and the subject of sovereignty and nation insofar as their links to war and peace. Intra-state conflict, confidence building measures (CBMs) and reconciliation are also major subjects in the LA agenda. Further, more attention seemed to be paid in LA regarding armed forces collaboration on the regional and sub-regional levels and democracy and governance implied development as a key issue. The socio-economic structures, poverty and unemployment can constitute elements to de-democratise the society and revert to militarization (as is the case of Colombia). Also, the debate on the state recovering the monopoly of force and fight the international organised crime, rated high in the debate in LA. Comments were subsequently made on the need to study the links between conflict and democratisation, and check how governance appeared as a response to deal with these issues. Also the need to look at the Diaspora and their contribution was seen as important and in need to be brought to the agenda of national governments, sub-regional organisations and even donors. Solly Mollo stated that the ability to network is already an achievement in Africa, where not so long ago communications and meetings with people from different backgrounds interacting were scarce. He pointed out that this could just become another workshop or every one of us could actually take

20


the lessons learned and knowledge accumulated and disseminate it in their own environment. He highlighted that knowledge alone is not power, but that only shared knowledge meant power. Following, Jan Kamenju argued that the need to find entry points for action and for influencing policy was crucial and that despite the importance of continental and regional mechanisms, the national level is the best way to start, since implementation occurs at this level. On policing Otwin Marenin stated the lack of information about it in Africa and the fact there are failures but also successes and that these are not documented. Issues like accountability, transnationalism and professionalism must be analysed in an integrated framework to discuss governance. However, governance means different things in different contexts and this should not be underestimated. State militias and private security companies are issues which ought to merit more attention from this project, in the view of Guy Lamb. He argued that even if the UK Government is pushing this agenda into discussion at the same time, UK companies are the ones that do most business and damage in this arena. If on the one hand the UK pushes the SSR agenda forward, on the other the UK private security companies will then recruit victims of SSR for their business purposes. Funmi Olonisakin, who highlighted the following, then provided a session closing summary: Lessons: What was useful?

• SSG cannot be considered in isolation to the broader relationship between conflict and democracy and the context of the build-up of the state in Africa;

• Efficient and accountable security institutions are key to the achievement of sustainable development;

• Need for grounding in common security for state, regime and individuals;

• The acknowledgment that a more holistic focus is required for the study of SSR/SSG, implying understanding of institutions, how they organise themselves and how they are governed, i.e., the existing formal and informal relationships between the actors.

The way forward for research:

21


• Research should be incremental;

• Move from concrete to a more holistic research;

• Examine and create alternative models;

• Examine governance of the security sector in a continuum with governance of the justice area;

• Understand that Governance means different things in different sectors;

• Explore Governance of private security;

• Analyse recruitment policies in the security sector;

• Undertake a study on the role of state militias;

• Need for regional models while keeping national contexts;

• Include the political economy of states socio-economic dimension to understand better the behaviour of institutions (implying more interdisciplinary research);

• Focus on a concrete time span, so that conclusions can be comparable;

• Include the gender aspect in the study;

• Investigate the relation between SSG, DDR, SALW;

• Organise the research agenda according to the relevant policy issues and concrete regional problems.

The way forward for policy (through advocacy and networking):

• Action through involvement of communities and directly with local actors Address the imbalance of distribution of resources (human and financial on people who work in the security sector);

• Develop concrete initiatives/activities with measurable impact;

• Expand the constituency of the networks and bring in more Francophone people;

• Explore an engagement with non-state actors;

• Emphasize and understand the nature of SSR/SSG as a longer-term process;

• Link SSG into the AU/NEPAD agenda and similarly to the regional organisations (e.g. ECOWAS, SADC), despite the fact of being only a small entry-point in the peace and security agenda of the continent and of the regional organisations.

22


The workshop proceeded towards its closure with the impending idea that improved dialogue is needed between donors, other actors and agencies undertaking reforms and the countries which implement these in order to achieve common ground, before embarking on an attempt to reform, transform or improve the governance of the security sector.

Brief extracts from this publication may be reproduced provided the source is fully acknowledged.

This publication was produced by the GFN-SSR For further information please contact: GFN-SSR Resource Centre Wellington Hall Cranfield University Shrivenham Swindon SN6 8LA United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)1793 785020 Fax: +44 (0)1793 785771 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.gfn-ssr.org

© GFN-SSR, 2004

Date post:	16-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Workshop on Security Sector Governance in...

Documents