How does strong military autonomy affect security sector governance and its reform? What does the experience of Security Sector Transformation (SST) in the Philippines reveal about military resistance to reform? This paper finds that the Philippine military’s influence over security policy has led to a narrow interpretation of SST as military reform and to the adoption of laws and polices inimical to democratic security governance. Addressing these challenges requires a coherent and holistic vision of reform.
Security sector transformation (SST) is the transformation of the security system so that it is managed according to democratic norms and good governance. The military’s level of political autonomy is one factor that affects SST. In many democratising countries, the security sector has not disengaged from politics but is involved in new forms of intervention beyond the traditional coup d’etat.
The case of the Philippines provides an example of how military political autonomy affects reform efforts. The country has returned to democratic rule after 14 years of authoritarianism, and is still struggling to consolidate its democracy. Military political autonomy is increasing despite the number of democratic institutions that exist alongside it. The Philippine military:
- Has a high degree of autonomy and influence over security policy. Laws and policies on insurgency and counter-terrorism give extensive and poorly defined powers to the government and the military.
- Views SST as ‘military reform’. The focus is on improving operational effectiveness, not on increasing transparency, accountability, and responsiveness.
- Has a moderate degree of autonomy over human rights issues. While human rights have been respected by post-authoritarian governments, the military has not been held accountable for alleged extrajudicial killings of left wing activists, progressive journalists and civil society figures.
- Cannot assert its autonomy over the defence budget. The Philippines has one of the lowest defence expenditures in Southeast Asia. However, the legislature’s budget limitations are motivated by political, not SST objectives.
When the military enjoys significant political autonomy it defines and dominates the framework of SST, stifles and undermines reforms, and hinders the participation and influence of other actors, especially civil society. In the Philippines, the internal security context and the historical role of the military have given it undue influence over the government on security policy. There will need to be:
- Better knowledge and expertise on SST, within security sector agencies themselves, among civilians appointed to oversight bodies, and within civil society to develop capacity for SST advocacy.
- Appropriate timing, sequencing, and coordination of reform activities. Coherence is essential if SST is to achieve its intended impact.
- More balanced implementation of SST. The intelligence services and police are as important as the military to the provision of security.
- Widespread and meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders in reformulating the SST framework.
