Security sector reforms in any country must be designed, managed and implemented by local people if they are to succeed. But while it is fashionable for policy statements to declare the importance of ‘local ownership’, the concept has proven difficult to apply, with donor governments guilty of frequent breaches.

Reforming the police, military, intelligence agencies, prison services and other security organisations should be a democratic process involving parliament and civil society. A new book published by the University of Birmingham UK draws on case studies of security sector reform to offer donors guidance on how best to encourage local involvement and ownership of the process.

Donors involved in reforming the security sector must design flexible programmes, the processes of which are as important as the end objectives. Political legitimacy and stability, after all, depend on reform processes that are driven by local people and empower them. 

If donors impose their own reform models, it can lead to local resentment and inertia, and the ultimate failure of reform. Security sector reform (SSR) must be viewed both as a political project and a democratising project. Further, the degree to which reform is realisable is dependent on three key factors: the nature of the political system, political leadership and local capacity.

The authors use case studies from South Africa, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Liberia and Sierra Leone to illustrate the difficulties of local ownership, while trying not to romanticise the concept:

• In Afghanistan, SSR was driven by foreigners, with insufficient attention paid to co-ordination, local ownership and building up of local skills and resources.
• A national programme to reintegrate former soldiers in Ethiopia was successful due to its flexibility, responsiveness and creative use of domestic resources.
• In Guatemala, promoting dialogue between different sectors built the capacity of civil society to push democratic reform.
• Liberia’s SSR was characterised by the absence of local ownership and the controversial outsourcing of SSR to foreign security companies.
• An inclusive, participatory process was used to prepare the South African White Paper on Defence.

The book recommends that donors avoid formulaic approaches to SSR. They should develop flexible programmes that are responsive to local needs. The book concludes with five capacity-building proposals that donors could support in the interests of local ownership:

• research support for parliamentary committees dealing with security
• supporting the development of security policy and planning units of partner governments
• a small grants scheme for civil society activities focusing on security to enable greater public participation in security debates
• efforts to build domestic capacity to draft security legislation
• comparative SSR exchange and study, to build up the knowledge of local groups working on SSR and their understanding of experiences in other countries. 

Source(s):
‘No Ownership, No Commitment: A Guide to Local Ownership of Security Sector Reform’, University of Birmingham, GFN-SSR: Birmingham, by Laurie Nathan, Bernardo Arevalo de Leon, Mulugeta Gebrehiwot Berhe, Kellie Conteh, Adedeji Ebo and Emma Sky, 2007

Funded by: Security Sector Reform Strategy of the UK Government’s Global Conflict Prevention Pool

id21 Research Highlight: 19 March 2008

Further Information:
Laurie Nathan
Department of Environmental and Geographical Science
University of Cape Town
Private Bag X3
Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

Tel: +021 6504306
Contact the contributor: l.nathan@lse.ac.uk

University of Cape Town, South Africa

London School of Economics and Political Science, [LSE] UK

Other related links:
'Democracy rules? Subduing armed forces in Africa'

'Making military and security forces in West Africa accountable'

Understanding and supporting security sector reform

'Policing development: linking security and poverty reduction'

Eldis - Conflict and Security Resource Guide