Security sector reform (SSR) has become dominated by donor approaches and perspectives and the increasing ability of local actors to secure SSR funding for their own ends. This Institute for Security Studies paper analyses SSR within an African context and underscores the need to translate SSR principles into effective reform of security service provision. In order to align SSR with the current exercise of power in Africa, programming should focus on state-centred reform of the military, police, intelligence, paramilitary and non-statutory forces.
SSR has become an accepted part of larger peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction agendas. It is a critical aspect in the creation of an enabling environment for development and stability. Its most basic goal is to create legitimate, professional and accountable security service providers.
However, the legitimacy of the SSR concept is threatened by the inability to identify central values or criteria that identify security apparatus changes as specific to SSR. It has become difficult to determine if SSR is truly part of the peacebuilding agenda or if it is just being used as a means to justify and solicit support for building state security agencies.
The following constitute SSR issues that are currently preventing effective reform programme agendas:
- While the SSR concept stresses coherence and multi-sectoral strategies, SSR activities remain fragmented, piecemeal and sector-specific. Political system weaknesses obstruct SSR; many SSR principles are irrelevant in certain contexts.
- While SSR is central to post-conflict reconstruction, many problems that cause insecurity or instability are outside the realm of the security sector. Donors frequently rely on state institutions that have neither legitimacy nor capacity to implement SSR.
- Donors often apply a maximalist approach to SSR that results in an inventory of security actors, structures and institutions targeted for reform. This approach appears to be only a convenience for donors to package a wide range of activities to meet the current appeal for SSR activities.
- While local ownership has intrinsic value, it is increasingly being used by local actors in their pursuit of donor funding for their own political ends.
- Illegitimate authorities are capitalising on SSR’s broad agenda to generate funds to strengthen state security apparatus in pursuit of questionable objectives. Donors fail to insist that local actors commit to basic values of legitimacy and respect for human rights.
The following recommendations would help fill the gap between the normative SSR agenda and the current exercise of power in Africa:
- Focus programming on reform of state-centred security: the military, police, intelligence, paramilitary and non-statutory forces.
- Prioritise SSR according to local context: consolidating democracies, lapsing or stalled democracies, transitional democracies, conflict-torn societies and states under reconstruction.
- Identify a final sector vision for all programmes and understand local reform motivations.
- Base sector legitimacy on representative security forces and checks and balances.
- Insist upon security institutions with legal mandates and functions derived from the rule of law and appropriate to the needs of the people.
