Will democracy and security sector reform discourage terrorism?<\/p>\n
Anak Agung Banyu Perwita
\nBandung<\/p>\n
The tragedy of Sept. 11 in the United States and other
\nterrorist attacks in many regions of the world, including in
\nIndonesia, have increased the significance of security sector
\nreform in general and in Indonesia in particular. This is mainly
\ndue to the fact that terrorist acts are attacks on freedom and
\ncivilization throughout the entire world. The globalization of
\nterror and the resultant fear of it has forced nation states to
\nreconceptualize and to strengthen their (national) security.<\/p>\n
In line with a growing body of literature on national security
\nstudies and democratic peace, the efforts of democratic states in
\nproviding security to their peoples are guided by the conviction
\nthat the quality of security provided by the state depends on the
\nability of state to organize its security forces along democratic
\nlines as part of a security sector reform initiative. Security
\nsector reform, which was introduced in the 1990s, was a
\nrelatively new concept designed to deal with the problems and
\nchallenges of the new security environment.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, civil society actors also play an equally
\nimportant role in helping to manage and oversee the security
\nsector.<\/p>\n
Security sector reform (SSR) is primarily concerned with the
\nestablishment of appropriate structures for (democratic) civilian
\ncontrol. The other key elements of SSR, as Timothy Edmunds
\nargues, are the process of the civilianization of security sector
\nbureaucracies and the depoliticization of the security sector. It
\nis clear that the role of civilians as part of the \"wider
\nsecurity family\" is quite crucial for the development of
\ndemocratic security forces and the process of SSR.<\/p>\n
It is, of course, not an easy task the question as to whether
\ndemocracy and security sector reform will discourage terrorism.
\nAlthough the number of cynics may be growing, democratization, to
\na large extent, has gained momentum as a counterterrorism
\nstrategy in the post Sept. 11 world. The logic behind this
\nstrategy is that democratic procedures and institutions can help
\nto address the underlying roots of terrorism.<\/p>\n
The causes and roots of terrorism as a transnational threat
\nare multifaceted and complex, and any single response, such as a
\nmilitary response, will only create new problems. A comprehensive
\nand dynamic policy response rather than a coercive one is
\nessential. Such a comprehensive policy should incorporate
\nactivities that attack both the symptoms and causes of terrorism.<\/p>\n
The lack of democracy has played a role, however, in producing
\nthe conditions that are conducive to the emergence of terrorist
\nmovements.<\/p>\n
In the case of Indonesia, for example, the failure to respond
\nto political reform and law enforcement is believed to have led
\nto the emergence of new terrorists in radical Islamic
\nmovements. Consequently, the establishment of a more democratic
\npolitical system and the enhancement of law-enforcement
\ncapability can be used as a \"soft tool\" to mitigate the spread of
\nterrorist movements.<\/p>\n
In today's international relations, threats to security are
\nnot only military in nature, but also include non-military
\nthreats such as transnational organized crimes and terrorism.
\nThese new threats, of course, require that all a state's security
\nactors operate in a concerted manner. Further, the changing
\nsecurity environment has also led to two important changes in the
\nconcept of security, namely: from an exclusive focus on
\nterritorial security to a greater emphasis on human security, and
\nfrom security through armaments to security through sustainable
\nhuman development.<\/p>\n
As a result, a national security strategy should include all
\nthe strands of the wider security sector and clearly articulate
\nthe objectives and priorities of a more comprehensive national
\nsecurity interest. In this context, the U.S.-led \"war on
\nterrorism\" is particularly illustrative of the changing nature
\nand response of military security as well as the increasing
\n\"securitization\" of non-military issues.<\/p>\n
From a security perspective, the security sector reflects the
\nbroader notion of security. This is due to the fact that SSR does
\nnot only cover the military but also acknowledges the significant
\nrole of the non-military actors in the provision of public
\nsecurity -- both internal and external. The main concern of SSR,
\nthen, is the establishment of new institutions and delineating
\nthe powers of security sector actors.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the main objective of SSR is \"to create systemic
\naccountability and transparency on the premise of increased,
\nsubstantive and systematic democratic control\".<\/p>\n
From this objective, we can get an understanding that SSR uses
\na holistic approach by recognizing the significance of
\nmilitarized formations other that the regular armed forces in
\ncivil-military reform efforts and recognizing that the role of
\nsecurity and security sector actors in economic and political
\nreform are important and complex.<\/p>\n
SSR is about making the institutions that are responsible for
\nprotecting society more accountable to individual citizens and
\ncommunities and more responsive to their security needs, while
\nensuring that they become more efficient and effective in
\nproviding security.<\/p>\n
In this context, democratic governance is at the core of SSR.
\nHowever, improving the democratic governance of the security
\nsector is a societal challenge that requires reformers (military,
\nparliaments and civilians) to take into account the specific
\ncultural, political and institutional conditions of a state.
\nThus, from a governance perspective, the security sector should
\nbe subject to the principles of good governance, such as
\naccountability, transparency and democratic participation.<\/p>\n
Consequently, SSR is a long-term developmental program that
\nrequires the transformation of state structures, operating
\nprocedures, legal provisions, and even cultural traditions. It is
\nan integrated component of the state's overall governance system
\nand structure.<\/p>\n
The writer is Dean of the School of Social and Political
\nSciences at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung. He can be
\nreached at banyu@home.unpar.ac.id<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/will-democracy-and-security-sector-reform-discourage-terrorism-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}