The difference in donor approaches to security sector reform (SSR) and its actual practice in Africa is immense. This paper, published by the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes, reviews SSR projects in Africa with significant input from external donors. The review reveals considerable variations of approach, while a comparative analysis of SSR in Sierra Leone and Liberia contrasts the differing application of core principles of SSR in these two cases. Generally, donor SSR projects do not substantially differ from the previous piecemeal and uncoordinated approach they have traditionally adopted towards defence, policing and justice reform.
Post-colonial Africa inherited states that were organised solely for colonial economic and political interests. While independence brought some attention to individual security, the interests of ruling elites still prevailed. Citizens in many Afican countries view security institutions with fear and distrust. Given the pervasiveness of violent conflict in several African societies, the case for SSR is compelling.
The United Kingdom (UK) is currently by far the most active donor in Africa, followed by the United States, Germany, the Nordic countries, Canada, and France. While all donors have established coordinating mechanisms, their commitment to cooperation and coherent approaches varies considerably.
Both Sierra Leone and Liberia suffered armed conflict with similar causes; their SSR depends heavily on external donors. The following comparisons and contrasts between the two countries highlight current donor approaches to SSR:
- Sierra Leone’s SSR exhibits comprehensive good practices; a holistic approach is clearly discernible. SSR is coordinated, both among government departments and donor nations.
- Generally, Liberia’s SSR deals only with disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration and military/policy/security institution reform. No single external actor coordinates SSR; it is poorly coordinated and fragmented.
- Local ownership in Sierra Leone includes group consultations, media coverage and broad citizen participation. In Liberia, there has been virtually no public/local dialogue on the content of security review.
- Sierra Leonean SSR policy indicates a people-centred understanding of security. Liberia’s policy does not directly address people-centred issues.
- In both Sierra Leone and Liberia, women were involved in initial peacebuilding efforts. Once peace machinery was in place, they and their rights and security needs were sidelined.
- SSR in both Sierra Leone and Liberia began with commitments to internationally-accepted SSR norms, standards and practices. The significant differences between the countries’ SSR in practice cast doubt on the impact of such initial commitments.
Instead of the comprehensive approach the conceptual literature posits as a definitive SSR feature, SSR in practice is frequently seen in narrow institutional terms. These include:
- Defence and police reform are given more attention than other security sector components.
- Local ownership is frequently reduced to securing local government agreement to donor-driven strategies and programmes.
- Transparency and accountability are not treated as centrally important.
- Community and individual security are underdeveloped.
- Donors need to learn from successful SSR endeavours conceived and executed without foreign assistance. There is still an undoubted Eurocentrism evident in most current SSR practices.
