What is the role and function of the South African intelligence community in the security apparatus of the state? What is the relationship between intelligence and democracy? This collection of papers from the Institute for Security Studies evaluates how the South African intelligence community is grappling with the democratic demands of openness and accountability while maintaining the secrecy necessary for intelligence services to function effectively. It acknowledges that democratic control of the intelligence sector is a challenge even for mature democracies.
Since South Africa’s transformation to democracy in 1994, massive reforms have been achieved within the security sector. The mandate, functions and controls on the intelligence sector were transformed into a leading model of democratic governance. In comparison with the apartheid period, the intelligence community (civilian and security forces) has a vastly limited domestic function. This is based on the changes in the political environment as well as on the transformation of the function of the state security apparatus into tools serving the interests of the citizens. However, it is not clear that there is any need for a domestic intelligence service that is focussed on political intelligence. The main concern with the continued existence of a domestic mandate so broad as to include any item that could cause instability is the potential for abuse.
Several key mechanisms have been established for exercising democratic control of the intelligence services. These include the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the Inspector General. In March 2008, the Protection of Information Bill was published. This has provided a unique opportunity for encouraging public debate on fundamental issues such as the nature and character of the intelligence services. Amongst the core issues are:
- A lack of public interaction, engagement and participation in discussion of the intelligence sector.
- An expanding role for the domestic intelligence service that has led to a focus on non-traditional issues such as potential disruption by labour disputes and the potential instability emerging from the ANC succession debate.
- The uncontrolled and excessive use of secrecy, which has the potential for abuse and can be a source of instability, and can even be detrimental to countering certain security threats.
- Protection from disclosure of information is governed by Protection of Information Act 84, which remains unchanged since the Apartheid era.
- There is no framework for the classification and declassification of information.
The Protection of Information Bill has been widely criticised. However, it has energised discussion on issues of secrecy and transparent democratic governance in South Africa. Issues include:
- The need for a new framework for the protection of information, including clear and distinct guidelines for its classification and declassification.
- The importance of controlling against the use of secrecy to manipulate, hide abuse and maladministration, and to curtail democratic participation and accountability.
- The importance of determining how the state secures information that could cause demonstrable harm, while at the same time not reducing the Constitutional right of access to information.
- The need to understand domestic threats in order to make clear the role that the intelligence services can play and the possibility that other institutions of democracy ought to be central to countering such potential threats.
