How extensive are links between state and non-state security and justice providers? Should such links be supported, and if so, how? This study argues that state and non-state links abound, even creating hybrid institutions. Given that state- non-state links strengthen existing systems (rather than trying to build new Western ones), they seem an appropriate approach to security and justice in the South. Security and justice provision would be transformed if programmes, recognising the multiple layering of providers, were to build bridges across those layers.
A wide range of non-state security actors – commercial, customary and community-based – are involved in security and justice provision in the South. However, despite governments’ inability to offer effective and accessible security and justice services for the majority of citizens, donors and international organisations are wary of supporting (already prevalent) local non-state providers. This reluctance seems to be based on an ideological commitment to ‘state-building’. However, there is a realisation among donors that these links should be supported in certain circumstances.
Links between state and non-state actors occur in four main categories: 1) the sharing of intelligence; 2) the sharing of equipment and training; 3) joint patrols and operations; and 4) enrolment by one actor of another. Enrolment refers to one actor aligning its own objectives to some degree with the direction given by another actor. Further findings are that:
- Links can benefit both partners, benefit one partner but weaken the other, or benefit one partner while the other sees little benefit.
- Links can be initiated by both sides, but the state usually makes the first move. Local police commanders or magistrates, for example, have gained from forging alliances with local leaders.
- Security and justice actors seek partners who can supplement their resources (their economic, cultural or social capital). Therefore, links are beneficial to most actors and many are open to negotiating them.
- Links with non-state actors will rarely be seen by governments as a perfect solution. However, having some control over non-state actors may be worth the government losing centralised, uniform security and justice provision.
- Links can raise standards on both sides: the state increases its understanding of local needs and knowledge and non-state actors conform more to international standards.
- The adaptability of local non-state structures allows them to combine with external approaches to form more than just a link, and to create an original hybrid formation.
Actively developing links between state and non-state systems offers the opportunity of state oversight according to defined standards and within an affordable national budget. It can also link state systems to non-state providers who enjoy local ownership, sustainability and effective procedures. Initiating (not just strengthening) links which promise mutual enhancement can be beneficial. In addition:
- A state/non-state partnership needs an overarching framework of principles and supervisory structures.
- Links are more likely to work as the skills of both partners improve, as both sides increasingly respect and trust one another and gain local support.
- Practical steps might include training non-state actors to be able to provide legal information and guidance, or improving their mediation and conflict-resolution skills for civil disputes.
- Links can be established through an appeal process by which decisions rendered by non-state justice can be appealed to the state justice system. This would reduce inconsistencies and poor performance.
- A key factor in effective security links is good governance and monitoring. This might include an accreditation programme.
- A policy of links is not a panacea. There are some non-state groups (those that fail to adhere to even minimum standards or lack local support) with which neither the police nor the government would want to link. Likewise, there may be non-state groups that would resist working with the police for fear of losing credibility.
