What is the impact of the wider political process on security sector reform (SSR) in Georgia? This chapter analyses how and why SSR has taken place in Georgia, the context in which it operates and key lessons learned. It argues that SSR is inextricably linked to broader national and international political processes. International best practice fails to consider the narrow windows of opportunity for SSR in challenging environments. Quicker, more flexible approaches may be needed, although their long-term results may be questionable. Local ownership is critical to long-term, sustainable reform.
The political elite is strongly committed to transforming the state in line with Western democratic models and standards. This objective is motivated in part by international influence and support, as well as by a strong desire to become a member of the EU and NATO. The language of SSR is rarely used in Georgia; however, reform of the security structures, as well as the governance standards underpinning them, is an integral part of its transformation agenda.
Georgia is characterised by unresolved or ‘frozen’ conflicts, which require a different approach to SSR than ‘immediately’ post-conflict situations. In situations of unresolved conflict, efforts are needed to ensure that SSR does not lead to renewed tensions. (Lessons can be learned from defence reform in Georgia, which fuelled tensions between parties and thus had a negative influence on conflict dynamics.) SSR in Georgia illustrates key issues, such as:
- Local ownership: Political elites display strong local ownership of reform. However, the extent to which reform is supported by wider society is open to question.
- The role of geopolitical factors: There is a lack of consensus among international and regional players on the need for and vision of reform. This stems from the fact that Georgia is at the centre of geopolitical tensions between Russia, on the one hand, and the US, EU and NATO, on the other.
- Best practice versus quick wins: There are mixed views regarding the need for a trade-off between implementing best practice on SSR, which may be too slow and difficult in challenging environments, and more flexible approaches that deliver quick results. Flexible approaches have enabled the fast pace of reform in Georgia, but gains may be short-lived if they lack firm foundations and rely on individuals for support.
Security sector reform cannot be separated from wider domestic and international political processes. Whilst the political dimension may lead to positive benefits such as a supportive political environment for reform, it may also have negative consequences such as interference from domestic and outside actors who oppose reform or inappropriate or unworkable proposals for reform by external actors who lack an understanding of the context. Other key lessons learned include:
- There are no silver bullets in promoting local ownership. Even in cases where official support is lacking, sustained international engagement can spur future reform by influencing individuals who recognise the need for change.
- Security sector reform is likely to be more effective in situations where national governments have a clear vision and end goal (such as membership of an international organisation).
- SSR in situations of longstanding or unresolved conflicts is fundamentally different from ‘immediately’ post-conflict situations where the international community has a greater scope to set the agenda.
- Defence reform is likely to be a highly sensitive issue in situations of unresolved conflict and may spark renewed tensions. More attention should be paid to conflict analysis and to engaging other actors in dialogue.
- SSR practitioners should reflect on the sequencing and prioritisation of reforms in challenging contexts, as well as the long-term effects of flexible approaches to security sector reform.
