Will democracy and security sector reform discourage terrorism?

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