Thinking Strategically About Security Sector Reform
successfully reform their security sectors and looked closely at
the subject. The U.S. government rightly concluded the security sector in a modern 21st century state provides an effective
and legitimate public service that is transparent, accountable
to civil authority, and responsive to the needs of the public. It
consists of the set of policies, plans, programs, and activities by
which the government provides safety, security, and justice.4
The U.S. definition assumes the essentiality of representative
governance. It is true that non-representative states can provide
safety and security—a sense of stability, but often at the cost
of justice and with a lack of transparency, accountability, and
responsiveness to their populations. Such states will ultimately
fail to meet the legitimate needs of their citizens or to be successful in a positively competing international order. They will
be a source of instability as opposed to a contributing partner to
international stability.
The security sector of a state has external and internal aspects
and requires security providers for both aspects, even though
some security forces may function in either. Sovereign state
security providers are organized in various forms of military,
paramilitary, and law enforcement structures: military forces—
armies, navies, air forces, navies, and marines; border security
forces, customs authorities, and coast guards; intelligence
services; civilian police and specialized police units; national
guards and government militias; and other security and civil
defense units. States have various ways of categorizing these
formal security forces, but in properly functioning states they
share the common attribute of being responsive to and supportive of the state. In theory, through these forces, the state maintains territorial and sovereign security against external threats,
maintains a monopoly over the use of violence internally, and
provides for public order and physical security that enables
other development.
Non-state security providers may exist within a state and contribute or detract from security or the state’s sovereignty and
legitimacy. Non-state security and justice providers are those
non-governmental systems or individuals who have varying degrees of formal and informal jurisdiction. Context determines
the value of non-state security providers. Informal traditional
justice systems or neighbor watch groups may enhance security, if united in common purpose with positive government
goals. However, non-state militias, criminal organizations, and
forces loyal to political opportunists or spoilers may constitute a
challenge to the state’s security responsibilities, raising issues of
sovereignty and legitimacy. In addition, outside agitators, such
as international crime or business, other states, and special interest groups, may influence internal security. Internal security is
complex and the dynamics can spill over into other states.5
Designated security providers are only one part of a functioning security sector in the 21st century. Government security
management and oversight bodies are another essential element.
These formal and informal bodies within the state oversee the
security forces and agencies of the state and may be part of the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches, or special commissions and review boards. Such bodies ensure security providers
serve the state with efficacy and in a lawful manner. If such
bodies are unprepared, incompetent, corrupted, or nonexistent,
the security sector is weakened correspondingly.6 Civil society also plays a vital role in over watching the security sector
through the media, related professional organizations, think
tanks, academia, and advocacy groups. These groups critique
and advise the security organizations and policy makers as well
as keep the public informed. Good state security is a product of
a constructive interaction among all these actors and agencies.
Consequently,