A comprehensive approach to security sector reform (SSR) includes not only improved use of resources and civilian control, but more competent forces capable of providing genuine security. This brief, published by the Bonn International Center for Conversion, examines SSR from the development perspective and discusses good development practices and obstacles to SSR. Local ownership is critical; top-down development processes that do not incorporate local contexts are unlikely to produce responsive, responsible political institutions.
The end of the Cold War brought military-related issues back onto the agenda of development policy. However, after a decade of focus on military aspects of conflict prevention, resolution and reconstruction, a broader SSR concept has begun to attract the attention of development policy makers.
Dimensions of the broader SSR concept include sector size and costs, professionalisation and skill development, effective civilian control, legislative oversight and public involvement. SSR now emphasises the optimisation of structure and capacity of security actors for social, economic, political and human development.
Broader SSR, including improved security sector professionalism and capacity, civil society engagement and emphasis on practical disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR), improves the chances for success. However, the following obstacles hamper SSR:
- Developing countries generally lack financial and policy expertise and overall capacity.
- There is an abiding tendency for post-conflict regimes to view security in an authoritarian and militarist fashion. Military and other security actors can be particularly resistant to the organisational and attitudinal changes that reform requires.
- Post-conflict conditions often create a security vacuum which states and individuals seek to fill through the use of violence.
- Donors emphasise the social and economic potential of DDR programmes. Post-conflict governments see DDR as an instrument to create political loyalty and support among ex-combatants.
- There are no common DDR standards; DDR activities lack donor coordination.
- Donors generally attach more importance to SSR financing than to providing advisory services to local institutions. Donors focus on crisis reaction instead of crisis prevention.
The following recommendations would inform the development perspective and strengthen SSR:
- Donors need to consider their long-term SSR commitment. It must be calculated in terms of a generation, rather than the current perspective of 10 to 15-year processes.
- ‘Northern’ development models may not be appropriate to ‘Southern’ developing countries. Institutional capacity taken for granted in the North may be entirely absent.
- Top-down development processes that take little account of local needs and aspirations are unlikely to produce responsive, responsible political institutions.
- The international community needs to develop a common DDR standard.
- Civil society needs to be engaged in DDR planning and implementation.
