Security policy is widely believed to be the task of the executive. Parliaments are regarded as less suitable for making security decisions. This paper from the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) argues that parliamentary oversight of the security sector and its reform is in the interest of democracy and security. Security Sector Reform (SSR) creates systematic accountability and transparency on the premise of increased democratic control, placing it within the context of the good governance agenda.
A non-reformed security sector coincides with the concept of poor governance, characterised by corruption, arbitrary policy-making, abuse of executive power, unjust legal-systems, unaccountable bureaucracies, disengaged civil society and lack of professionalism in the security services. SSR is necessary to engender conflict prevention and stability, thereby contributing to sustainable economic development by encouraging investment. Professionalising security services enables trust that orders will be carried out. This is necessary in democracies where a legal framework, rooted in the values of accountability and transparency, subordinates the security services to the legitimate civilian political authority.
Parliamentary involvement and debates, by giving voice to the people’s security needs and concerns, transforms civilian oversight into democratic oversight. Subjecting security services to civilian supremacy and democratic governance is essential due to a number of factors:
- A state without parliamentary control of its security sector is an incomplete democracy. Security is a core state task with parliamentary oversight an essential counterbalance to the executive’s power and potential autocratic rule;
- As security sector organisations use a substantial share of the state’s budget, effective and efficient parliamentary monitoring of its use is needed;
- Parliaments play an important role in reviewing and amending draft security legislation, along with ensuring it is fully implemented;
- Parliamentarians are well-placed to ascertain the public’s security concerns and ensure they are reflected in relevant laws and policies. Their representational function allows parliamentarians to give or withhold democratic legitimacy to governmental security decisions; and
- In the post-Cold War security environment it is important that security services make the right choices under democratic guidance. Parliaments have to ensure that security services meet the demands of this environment, whilst being consistent with the constitution, international humanitarian and human rights law.
In both consolidated and consolidating democracies, effective parliamentary oversight of the security sector faces serious challenges:
- Secrecy laws may hinder efforts to enhance transparency, especially in emerging democracies or conflict-torn countries;
- Parliamentarians may lack sufficient knowledge and access to expert resources to effectively deal with highly complex security issues;
- Emphasis on international security cooperation may lead to parliaments being excluded. It is crucial to the transparency and democratic legitimacy of a country’s security policy that parliament participates in all stages of the policy process at international level; and
- All concerned actors in the military, civil society, the executive and democratic institutions must be convinced that parliamentary oversight is in the interest of democracy and security.
