• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
  • Blogs
Home»Document Library»Security Sector Reform – Potentials and Challenges for Conflict Transformation

Security Sector Reform – Potentials and Challenges for Conflict Transformation

Library
Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management
2004

Summary

In recent years international organisations and development agencies have become aware that development and peace processes cannot be effective or take place in situations of threat, social disorder or violence. They have thus focussed on Security Sector Reform (SSR) as an integral part of third party intervention. This issue of the Berghof Dialogue Series contains contributions from six authors. It examines the arguments for engagement with the security sector and provides an analysis of the dilemmas that arise and suggestions for how they might be overcome.

The lead paper by Herbert Wulf describes the historical development of thinking about SSR. It acknowledges past scepticism in the development community but also notes the reorientation required of the conflict resolution and development communities to engage with the issue. He offers a typology of different states’ capacities and commitment to reform and suggests that varied approaches are required.

The other articles offer the following responses:

  • Laurie Nathan and Najib Azca consider what is often referred to as South Africa’s successful process of conflict transformation and SSR. Failure does not always indicate lack of political will, though finding a way to reconcile different agendas of groups is a political, not technical process. They argue that in Indonesia community tensions have led to conflict perpetuating and the power-based model of social cohesion being maintained. Thus these tensions have worked against SSR.
  • Nicole Ball offers the security sector institutional assessment tool as a way to analyse what kind of reforms are both necessary and feasible. This focuses on the state’s role in the security sector and indicates the essentially political nature of SSR. For example, the prospects for reform are particularly poor in authoritarian states.
  • Marina Caparini notes that SSR is rarely achieved in practice, arguing that it requires a holistic approach with inter-agency cooperation. However, interagency rivalry is often more evident.
  • Vanessa Farr argues that the weakest sections of society are often acutely aware of issues that are normally overlooked in SSR. Yet it is insufficient to merely listen to their perspectives. Rather, they need some form of leverage to ensure that their concerns are incorporated into any SSR programme.

The authors offer the following recommendations for those working in conflict transformation:

  • When creating new structures and systems, what to do about past abuses of human rights under the old regime is unclear. Those implicated may impede such processes unless granted immunity, but this is generally unsatisfactory.
  • The existence of non-formal military units often makes reform more difficult, but there may be scope for disarmament and demobilisation or integration into state security services.
  • Clarity is important given that much is done under the label of SSR yet falls far short of the mark. For example, in the name of major or perceived security challenges, such as the war on terror, compromises are being made in tolerating human rights abuses and militarisation.
  • Unless there is an informed public debate where the individual can consider what they require from the security sector and ensure that those concerns have priority, the dominant culture will reflect a militarist mindset. This is where the conflict transformation community can make an important contribution in areas such as systems of civil oversight of the security services, and raising awareness of human rights issues among military personnel.

Source

McCartney, C., Fischer, M. & Wils, O. (eds.) 2004, 'Security Sector Reform - Potentials and Challenges for Conflict Transformation', Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No. 2, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin

Related Content

Trends in Conflict and Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Literature Review
2021
Faith-based organisations and current development debates
Helpdesk Report
2020
Responding to popular protests in the MENA region
Helpdesk Report
2020
Aid and non-state armed groups
Helpdesk Report
2020
birminghamids hcri

Contact Us Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more