Will democracy and security sector reform discourage terrorism?

Anak Agung Banyu Perwita Bandung

The tragedy of Sept. 11 in the United States and other terrorist attacks in many regions of the world, including in Indonesia, have increased the significance of security sector reform in general and in Indonesia in particular. This is mainly due to the fact that terrorist acts are attacks on freedom and civilization throughout the entire world. The globalization of terror and the resultant fear of it has forced nation states to reconceptualize and to strengthen their (national) security.

In line with a growing body of literature on national security studies and democratic peace, the efforts of democratic states in providing security to their peoples are guided by the conviction that the quality of security provided by the state depends on the ability of state to organize its security forces along democratic lines as part of a security sector reform initiative. Security sector reform, which was introduced in the 1990s, was a relatively new concept designed to deal with the problems and challenges of the new security environment.

On the other hand, civil society actors also play an equally important role in helping to manage and oversee the security sector.

Security sector reform (SSR) is primarily concerned with the establishment of appropriate structures for (democratic) civilian control. The other key elements of SSR, as Timothy Edmunds argues, are the process of the civilianization of security sector bureaucracies and the depoliticization of the security sector. It is clear that the role of civilians as part of the "wider security family" is quite crucial for the development of democratic security forces and the process of SSR.

It is, of course, not an easy task the question as to whether democracy and security sector reform will discourage terrorism. Although the number of cynics may be growing, democratization, to a large extent, has gained momentum as a counterterrorism strategy in the post Sept. 11 world. The logic behind this strategy is that democratic procedures and institutions can help to address the underlying roots of terrorism.

The causes and roots of terrorism as a transnational threat are multifaceted and complex, and any single response, such as a military response, will only create new problems. A comprehensive and dynamic policy response rather than a coercive one is essential. Such a comprehensive policy should incorporate activities that attack both the symptoms and causes of terrorism.

The lack of democracy has played a role, however, in producing the conditions that are conducive to the emergence of terrorist movements.

In the case of Indonesia, for example, the failure to respond to political reform and law enforcement is believed to have led to the emergence of new terrorists in radical Islamic movements. Consequently, the establishment of a more democratic political system and the enhancement of law-enforcement capability can be used as a "soft tool" to mitigate the spread of terrorist movements.

In today's international relations, threats to security are not only military in nature, but also include non-military threats such as transnational organized crimes and terrorism. These new threats, of course, require that all a state's security actors operate in a concerted manner. Further, the changing security environment has also led to two important changes in the concept of security, namely: from an exclusive focus on territorial security to a greater emphasis on human security, and from security through armaments to security through sustainable human development.

As a result, a national security strategy should include all the strands of the wider security sector and clearly articulate the objectives and priorities of a more comprehensive national security interest. In this context, the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" is particularly illustrative of the changing nature and response of military security as well as the increasing "securitization" of non-military issues.

From a security perspective, the security sector reflects the broader notion of security. This is due to the fact that SSR does not only cover the military but also acknowledges the significant role of the non-military actors in the provision of public security -- both internal and external. The main concern of SSR, then, is the establishment of new institutions and delineating the powers of security sector actors.

Meanwhile, the main objective of SSR is "to create systemic accountability and transparency on the premise of increased, substantive and systematic democratic control".

From this objective, we can get an understanding that SSR uses a holistic approach by recognizing the significance of militarized formations other that the regular armed forces in civil-military reform efforts and recognizing that the role of security and security sector actors in economic and political reform are important and complex.

SSR is about making the institutions that are responsible for protecting society more accountable to individual citizens and communities and more responsive to their security needs, while ensuring that they become more efficient and effective in providing security.

In this context, democratic governance is at the core of SSR. However, improving the democratic governance of the security sector is a societal challenge that requires reformers (military, parliaments and civilians) to take into account the specific cultural, political and institutional conditions of a state. Thus, from a governance perspective, the security sector should be subject to the principles of good governance, such as accountability, transparency and democratic participation.

Consequently, SSR is a long-term developmental program that requires the transformation of state structures, operating procedures, legal provisions, and even cultural traditions. It is an integrated component of the state's overall governance system and structure.

The writer is Dean of the School of Social and Political Sciences at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung. He can be reached at banyu@home.unpar.ac.id