How successful has Georgia been in its security sector reforms? This paper from the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development argues that a lot remains to be done to eliminate legislative flaws and the shortcomings of management. However, in such a fragile state, attempts to introduce best democratic practices immediately, without taking into account Georgia’s particular circumstances, could threaten the state. NATO and the EU should assist Georgia and make it a test site for mutual cooperation.
Georgia is considered to have been relatively successful in security sector reform. Oversight mechanisms have begun to work, civil society has become active, and there has been an increase in transparency and the official will to intensify the reforms. Although Saakashvili’s opponents declared his government a dictatorship, international human rights organisations have not.
Nevertheless, there have been instances of the disproportionate use of force, problems of accountability and transparency, misbalance between the branches of power and confrontation between the government and civil society, including the media. The government needs to prove constantly that breaches in the rule of law are exceptions rather than a downward trend.
Georgia remains a fragile political system whose democratic development is not an irreversible process. It is facing numerous domestic and foreign policy challenges linked to security problems. Effective security policy and sector reform are essential to the country’s democratisation and survival.
- Although legal and conceptual documents refer to democratic principles and values, there are still instances of disproportionate use of force by law enforcers, and there are difficulties investigating these incidents.
- The opposition plays very little role in the parliamentary oversight of the security sector.
- Relations with the public over security sector reform are weak. They exist only as isolated campaign events or videos.
- Representatives of security agencies are trained in communication skills and, in parts of the sector, there are advisory councils made up of members of civil society.
- The government has gradually acknowledged the significance of the problems in its relations with journalists and non-governmental organisations.
The future development of the security policy and sector should promote attainment of maximum harmonisation of security on the one hand and democracy and the requirements of the rule of law on the other.
- Transparency, accountability, the rule of law, democratic civil control and civil military relations should be founded upon proper values and a corresponding culture of conduct.
- There should be more job security for those employed in the security sector and an improvement in professional ethics. Trade union style organisations are needed to protect the rights of soldiers, officers and policemen.
- The government should interact regularly with journalists and non-governmental organisations in order to explain the reforms to the public.
- The media should increase its understanding of the security sector. NGOs should speak out about the processes in the security sector, but they should also cooperate with the government.
- The opposition must distinguish between the struggle for power and the sector’s reform programmes. They should show more enthusiasm for understanding and participating in these programmes.
- Parliamentary investigation commissions need to be introduced. A consensus should be reached over the inclusion of an opposition representative in the Group of Trust of the Committee on Defence and Security.
