What are the achievements, shortfalls and challenges of South Africa’s security governance? This article examines the roles played by governance actors, including the executive, parliament and civil society, in the fields of defence, safety and security, and intelligence. South Africa has consciously and fairly successfully sought to apply best democratic practices to the governance of security. However, while an ambitious, extensive and systematic process of reform has been carried out, progress has been uneven and fragmentary, and organisational and perhaps political fault-lines have emerged.
Considerable progress has been made in coordination of security policy and governance, and the Office of the Presidency has been strengthened. While a national security management system is in place, however, security sector policies are not always effectively implemented and do not necessarily achieve their goals. Overspending on military procurement may have reduced capacity in other areas of security. A coherent and integrated national security policy is needed.
The 1996 White Paper, ‘Defence in a Democracy’, focused on democratic control and established a human security approach domestically and a collaborative security approach externally. The policy, planning and budgeting process emerging from the subsequent Defence Review assumed that the role of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) would be conventional defence. However, the SANDF’s main roles are likely to be peacekeeping, border protection and police support. Further findings are that:
- Parliamentary committees function reasonably well, but neither the defence nor safety and security secretariats are achieving in full their constitutional objectives
- Levels of police repression and human rights abuses appear to have been reduced, but a more hard-line policing approach aimed at combating rather than preventing crime has emerged.
- A legislative and administrative intelligence framework consistent with best democratic practice has been put in place, and a multi-party Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence has been active in carrying out legislative, oversight and monitoring activities.
- The policy influence of CSOs seems to have waned in the security sector, although their research capabilities have grown.
- Community police forums are central to civil society oversight, but they are not always present in the communities where they are most needed.
In some ways South Africa has found more transparent and accountable ways of governing its security sector than more established democracies. However, the process of redressing inequality may have left other pressing institutional challenges unaddressed. Key issues include the following:
- Policy overload and transformation fatigue: Are institutions expected to do too much at the same time? Is there sufficient continuity of policy and institutional transformation?
- Policy reviews: Is it possible to operationalise the normative framework of democratic governance and human security while also ensuring effective day-to-day security management?
- Defence policy: It is important to ensure an appropriate balance between various capabilities is achieved.
- Safety and security policy: Is there policy coherence to the move away from normative concerns towards combating crime? Implementation: Policies need to match available resources.
- Centralisation: Is centralisation improving effectiveness? And if so, is it doing so at the possible expense of democratic governance?
- Control and oversight: Could the parliamentary committees be given an enhanced role and more resources? Community policing requires particular attention.
- One-party dominance: Consideration should be given to the extent of political appointments in the security institutions.
- Leadership: Much depends on the character and quality of senior leaders. Is sufficient attention being given to developing and appointing appropriate leaders and to succession strategies?
