Can Successful SSR Programmes be Locally-Owned - Essay Example

Successful SSR Programmes Can Never be Genuinely Locally-Owned Table of Contents Introduction 3 Importance of SSR Principles 4 Holistic Approach to SSR 4 Promotion of National or Local Ownership 5 Viability, Affordability and Sustainability of the SSR Approach 6 Prioritising Effective Governance relating to Civilian Oversights, and Sensitive Gender Issues 6 Examples of Efforts to Promote Local Ownership 7 Challenges Attributed in the Local Governance Principles of SSR Programmes 8 Ineffective Priorities and Aims in both Short and Long-term Goals 9 State Centric Approach 10 Political Legitimacy for Foreign Intervention 10 Critical Evaluation 11 Reluctance to Promote Local Ownership 12 Marginalisation of Authority 12 Lack of Support from the Domestic and International Actors 13 Gap between Principles and Practices 13 Conclusion 15 References 17 Introduction The concept of Security Sector Reform (SSR) programme acquires a collective recognition across the global communities owing to its evident contributions to the international governance system (Security Council Report, 2006). It is in this context that extensive appraisal of the SSR programmes by global strategists has been the result of its ability to be flexibly aligned with the goals of other security programmes in association with intergovernmental agencies or institutions. Hence, the importance of the ownership principles to SSR has gained substantial attention from across the international communities today (Gordon, 2014). Nevertheless, critics have debated on the roles of ownership principles as applied to SSR programmes, indicating the same as one of the growing concerns for international communities to achieve sustainable development (Donais, 2008). With this notion at the backdrop, the essay aims to develop a clear understanding of the role of local ownership principles and its importance in developing international communities through SSR programmes in justification that if it is possible to implement and control these initiatives as genuinely locally owned. Focusing on its objective to assess the role of local ownership from a critical point of view, the study also explores a few major and relevant examples highlighting the contributions and efforts of local ownership behind a successful SSR programme. To be summarised, the final section of this study critically evaluates the SSR programmes and assesses the roles of the local ownership principles in response to the arguments that have emerged across different parts of the international communities. Importance of SSR Principles In the recent phenomenon of international community development trends, wherein transparency and all-inclusiveness qualities are considered as imperative in the global governance system, SSR has emerged as a core set of disciplines with an aim of bringing changes and accelerating improvements in the domain. Arguably, the primary goal of a successful SSR programme is to maintain its venerable tradition of building a strong partnership with foreign entities in order to support adequate security and peace as well as to establish an efficiently organised democratic governance system (U.S. Agency for International Development, 2012). Studies conducted in relation to the issue revealed that implementation of a comprehensive set of SSR programmes in the post-conflict nations has become quite common, to secure adequate peace, development and stability by establishing fair security and justice systems. In this regard, the principles associated with security policies of SSR provide major support for these programmes to help developing a stable governance system in the post-conflict environment of the 21st century political context. Illustratively, in order to secure peace and development, the significance of the United Nations (UN) in promoting SSR programmes in the year 2008 has been commendable, as it voices a number of strong principles (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 2008). Correspondingly, a few of the prominent principles that govern the SSR programmes is described below. Holistic Approach to SSR Conserving a holistic approach is one of the key principles of SSR programmes. Contextually, the objectives of the SSR approach apparently justify its holistic characteristics that ensure security and intend to establish effective governance system in the post-conflict nations. In this regard, establishing effective governance as well as preserving oversights and accountability within the security systems of the post-conflict nations forms the primary objectives of the SSR approach (Bryden & Keane, 2009). Implementing an effective set of security measures along with building a strong justice system has also been the key objectives of a successful SSR approach. Additionally, to establish effective governance and security programmes ― with the goal of enriching the quality of security in the global periphery ― the continuous efforts of developing local ownership has been included in the determined set of SSR objectives. Leadership practices associated with the process of the reform and sustainability in the security and justice systems have gained much attention as a key objective among the strategists, when ensuring the effectiveness of the SSR programmes (OECD, 2011). Promotion of National or Local Ownership Successful SSR programmes include a wide range of integrated, focused and tailored features that empower donor support to establish appropriate governance. In this process, the reform has often focused on promoting local ownership as a measure to ensure utmost significance towards security and justice, especially in the post-conflict environment of the 21st century (Brzoska, 2006). With this principle in concern, the primary objective of promoting national ownership in SSR programmes is essential; fundamentally, because it helps building political will among the foreign partners and gaining adequate control on the mechanisms used for involving international entities from different legal, economic and demographic backgrounds in the security system. Emphasising the same principle, the UN approach to SSR also ensures that the ownership structure of these programmes are maintained with adequate flexibility and should be tailored in accordance with the environmental conditions prevailing in the nations (OECD, 2011). Viability, Affordability and Sustainability of the SSR Approach Besides the above stated principles, maintaining viability, affordability and sustainability of the SSR programmes are among a few other doctrines, essential to confirm its success. For instance, the reform framework considered for implementing SSR programmes requires planning and execution strategies in response to the environment of the post-conflict era. It is in this context that a viable and affordable set of development strategies and clear identification of the SSR activities, along with their priorities and indicative timelines are considered as the most essential elements in implementing the approach today (Nathan, 2007a). Prioritising Effective Governance relating to Civilian Oversights, and Sensitive Gender Issues Evaluation of the primary principles of SSR programme revealed the same to entail various policies and provisions associated with civilian oversights and sensitive gender issues. According to this principle, the UN approach to SSR focuses on assessing the same principles, when planning, organising, designing, implementing and monitoring each of its stages. Moreover, the principle also includes mandatory guidelines relating to the recruitment process along with the improvement of the security service-delivery mechanisms followed during SSR implementations (OECD, 2010). Notwithstanding the previously mentioned principles, the SSR programmes also include various other standards for its successful implementation. In this context, concentration of these norms and guidelines have been emphasising an effective process of delivering security and promoting peace through effective governance mechanism in the global periphery. Examples of Efforts to Promote Local Ownership The principles linked with local ownership has been widely accepted and considered as one of the primary prerequisites of a successful SSR programme. Considering the changes observed in the global governance scenario over the past few decades, different scholars, such as Gordon (2014), Sewdra (2010) and Nathan (2007) among others, have argued that sound ownership of the SSR programmes play a significant role when supporting justice and security. Contextually, the debate associated with the growing emphasis upon local ownership has emerged as a crucial concern, which restricts mainstream developmental practices to establish the objectives determined (Rees, 2006). In the recent past performance of SSR programmes within the international platform, the reform has been criticised to involve inappropriate principles and practices, hindering its success potentials and quality outcomes largely. For instance, as Ismail (2008) argues, the principles of local participation as well as capacity building through SSR has been extensively rooted to its political nature, implying sovereignty, statehood and independence on one hand, while sparing a gap wherein capacity building hinders equal ownership to local and governmental forces. However, at the similar context, it is also unrealistic to assume that adequate local ownership may persist in absence of capacity building or politically binding principles Ismail (2008). The efforts of the reform to establish a local governance system in different post-conflict environments have also attracted critics from around the world wherein arguments have concentrated on evaluating numerous challenges faced during its implementation with the aim to establish peace as well as tonsure adequate security and justice in the post-conflict nations (Gordon, 2014). Challenges Attributed in the Local Governance Principles of SSR Programmes Lack of Co-ordination The concept of SSR programme is a macro-strategic mechanism with multiple activities associated with the same, to address various types of sensitive issues in the post-conflict environments. However, the reform is a programmatic instrument, as it involves a wide range of principles for its extensive array of strategic measures (Gordon, 2014). A varied range of operations and factors are involved in the process, causing major obstacles for the local government to maintain appropriate validity and clarity of the SSR programmes. Existence of different actors with wide range of responsibilities in the governance system of the SSR programmes further give rise to major hurdles in achieving the determined goals. Contextually, it has often been witnessed that lack of communication and co-ordination between individuals engaged in diverse roles of the SSR programmes may result in causing hindrances to the process affecting its multidimensional efficiency. For instance, the judiciary department, law enforcement department and armed forces associated with the SSR programmes often inevitably affect each other while performing their assigned roles and responsibilities (Scheye & Peake, n.d.). This in turn raises scepticism regarding SSR programmes being genuinely locally-owned and simultaneously maintaining the desired level of efficiency. The post-conflict situation in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina can be duly accepted as few major examples when promoting local ownership in SSR programmes (Gordon, 2014; pp. 3 & 18). In these cases, the externally driven SSR programmes aimed at delivering control mechanisms to the local government, which ignited a degree of friction between the global operators and the local stakeholders, resulting in increased conflicts amid the two parties. In this regard, the lack of effective coordination persistent in the primary principles and goals of SSR had also delayed the transition of power to the local government. This in turn implicates that SSR programmes can never be genuinely locally owned (United Nations, 2006). Ineffective Priorities and Aims in both Short and Long-term Goals In Wulf (2004), a study associated with the challenges of SSR programmes, it was inferred that inappropriate design of priorities and aims associated with each activity is also a major concern that is often overlooked by the local governance system, resulting in the failure of the overall approach. It is fundamentally owing to the fact that the inappropriate mechanism leads to various gaps in the prioritisation of SSR activities, creating major concerns when dealing with obstacles in the post-conflict environment. Lacunas in differentiating the short and long-term goals further create major hurdles, a major factor leading to the local governance system failure in various SSR programmes (Wulf, 2004). Illustrative in this context is the SSR programmes adopted in Bosnia as per the Dayton Agreement governed by the international organisations. The agreement fuelled a wide-ranging debate causing a number of disputes in the operational coherence of the global governance system, aimed at enriching security and justice in the post-conflict arena. As observed in this case, local authorities governed the SSR programmes in Bosnia. However, a large degree of involvement by the international organisations, including the UN, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Office of the High Representative, and the European Union, was also apparent in the SSR program. This might have been a major cause to lower the control authority of the local governance system in the process substantially (Gordon, 2014). From a critical point of view, this aspect is identifiable as a drawback while considering SSR programme implementation as completely locally owned. State Centric Approach With an in-depth understanding of the SSR programmes, the reform has also been criticised as a state-centric mechanism. In a similar context, it has been critically argued that the SSR programmes, under a local governance system, are often focused on building or strengthening state-centric institutions. Thus, the principle of promoting local governance system is likely to overlook needs and expectations of the communities surrounding the post-conflict region or environment. The establishment of local governance system for SSR programmes may also overlook the importance of security and judiciary activities of the community members, leading to its failure (Wulf, 2006). With regard to the challenges derived from state-centric approach in the SSR programmes, the examples of Bosnia and Herzegovina are commendable. The reform programmes associated with the post-conflict environment fuelled a clash due to the inefficient strategic measures led by the state governments, lacking coordination with the local governance system simultaneously (Gordon, 2014). Thus, based on this particular ground, a concern also arises that entirely locally owned SSR programmes will hinder the degree of quality substantially. Political Legitimacy for Foreign Intervention Issues associated with political legitimacy and foreign intervention has been a long-standing obstacle in the execution of local governance for the SSR programmes within a post-conflict or transition area. The primary causes of these challenges comprise lack of support by both domestic and international actors, which are necessary for the intervention (Nathan, 2007b). In addition, lack of harmonisation in the context of SSR goals and their implementation strategies with the other domestic or international actors also can be widely accepted as major obstacles for the local governance system (Sedra, 2010). In the context of political legitimacy for foreign intervention challenges, the example of SSR programmes, governed by the US in Iraq during the year 2003, is significant. According to the security reform programs, to deal with this particular conflict, this US governed SSR programme lacked adequate coordination with the already applied resolutions by the UN Security Council (UNSC) that led to an extensive level of insurgencies within the process. In this regard, political legitimacy for foreign intervention might create major challenges in the local governance system to maintain adequate security and justice in the post-conflict environment (Gordon, 2014). Hence, political power related conflicts also hinder the possibilities to promote SSR programmes as completely locally owned. Critical Evaluation With reference to the above discussion, illustrating the real world scenarios from a critical point of view, it becomes apparent that the local authorisation of SSR programmes can generate various types of obstacles while delivering justice and security in the post-conflict environment. However, establishing a strong local ownership for the SSR activities can substantially improve the security and safety prospects in a given environment, building an effective set of judiciary activities in the post-conflict or transition nation (Sedra, 2010). Although the efforts performed by the local governance often involve numbers of issues or gaps in the SSR principles and practices, the strategy can comprehensively deal with the scenarios in the post-conflict regions. There are a number of reasons likely to obstruct the local authorities and therefore, cause instability in the global environment (United Nations, 2010). With this understanding, the following discussion critically assesses the key reasons leading to major obstacles for the local authorities while governing SSR programmes. Reluctance to Promote Local Ownership The reluctance to promote local ownership further limits the capability and expertise of strategists when implementing a designed SSR programme. In addition, significant constraints to manage time and costs associated with the SSR programmes are the major factors leading to constraints in the capability of the local governance (OECD, 2005). Marginalisation of Authority Marginalisation of prioritising community involvement, along with their security and justice is lacking in the SSR programmes owing to the limitations in local ownership principles. The functional attributes associated with the local governance system is also helpful to measure adequate security and justice of the community people. However, in various instances taking place in the post-conflict regions, the SSR principles governed by the local system can address marginalisation of security of the community members (Carlowitz, 2011). In addition, the political legitimacy of engaging domestic and international interventions when sharing SSR objectives and goals face major conflicts due to the marginalisation of authority offered to the local governance system. As marginalisation of political authority to offer security and justice for the local owners substantially reduces the political will of the participants in the local governance system, it may cause failure of the SSR programmes thereafter (Sriram & et. al., 2007). Lack of Support from the Domestic and International Actors The local governance system of SSR programmes face a number of obstacles due to the unsupportive behaviour deciphered by the domestic and other international players. With this concern, the reluctance of ensuring adequate support prevailing amid these members is a major factor to improve the political coalition along with security and justice within the post-conflict or transition environments (McCartney & et. al., 2004). Gap between Principles and Practices The trend of reluctance in promoting local authorisation of SSR programmes is the result of some genuine limitations in the context of human and institutional capabilities across the post-conflict environment. In relation to the perceived results of different SSR programmes led by the local governance system, governmental institutions often lack the credibility required to solicit expected community support to the reform to be a success. Furthermore, the expertise required to grab abundant knowledge and relevant experience in developing, managing and implementing SSR programmes may also become an issue in the process, hindering its level of success potentials (McCartney & et. al., 2004). Moreover, obtaining abundant experience by engaging in SSR activities in the post-conflict regions is also a major attribute to effectively deal with each principle and practice that are most effective to manage or implement peace, security and justice systems. In this context, the local governance, with substantial knowledge and ability to handle the situation effectively, can provide major support to the reform when aimed at achieving expected goals of each SSR programme (Law, 2007). With regard to the aforesaid factors that constraint the capability of the local governance, it can be ascertained that lack of coordination and support of the communities often diminish the significance of local governance, leading to the failure of the SSR programme. The efficacy of local authorities in the reform needs to be offered with strong support from the community population along with appropriate support of both domestic and international players. According to the roles of local governance, the involvement of domestic regions along with international players can substantially increase the efficiency of the SSR programmes (McCartney & et. al., 2004). The UN approach of SSR also provides considerable understanding about the significance of local governance. Effectually, the governing system can only perform effectively, if every group of community population supports as well as accepts it across the post-conflict environment. Moreover, a successful structure of local governance, for SSR programmes also requires equal involvement of the domestic and foreign actors to make effective decisions regarding the unstable environment in a controlled manner (Gordon, 2014). In addition to the possible measures to improve the SSR programmes led by the local governance, encouraging the promotion of each reform activity, communicating about their importance to each group of community population along with domestic and fellow regions are essential. The process of engaging community and other valuable actors in the reform must further focus on reenergising willingness of the community population and encouraging them to promote the determined goals, policies and practices associated with the same. This strategy would enable the local governance system to gain appropriate control of the situation and strengthen its governing practices to ensure security and appropriate justice system (Gordon, 2014; McCartney & et. al., 2004). Conclusion The evolution of SSR programmes in the post-conflict environment has faced major hurdles due to the existence of local ownership. In this context, the underwhelming outcomes of the security reform activities have raised concerns across various third world nations since the past two decades. The unforeseen results derived from the insufficient significance of local governance, has raised various contentions about the establishment of local authorisation to lead SSR programmes in the post-conflict environment. However, in most of the reform programmes across the globe, local ownership has also played a crucial role by establishing its fundamental aspects for a successful accomplishment of the SSR programs. Finally, making continuous improvements in local ownership is one of the principle aims for donor engagement in various SSR programmes for the post-conflict or transition areas. Implementation of the reform in many insurgent areas has experienced major issues and conflicts due to the engagement of local governance system in the reform programmes. To be summarised, this essay has covered the primary aspects leading to underwhelming performance of SSR programmes when implemented through local ownership in the post-conflict environment. In this context, the paper has provided relevant information regarding the major factors leading to constraints in the primary role of local governance system of the nations while executing peace, security and justice. In order to maintain relevance of the study, the discussion has also included a few noteworthy real-world examples. Accordingly, the study has argued in response to the contentions to avoid failures of the local governance while conducting reform programmes. In response to the arguments, the essay highlighted some remarkable factors lowering capability of local governance. In this context, the study reveals that reluctance of local strategists and community members; constraints due to lack of valuable resources; inadequate support from the domestic and other involved nations; and considerable gap between SSR principles hjave substantially reduced the capability of the local governance system while performing SSR programmes. These factors, have been substantially influenced the overall performance of key success drivers of SSR programmes. Hence, these findings reveal that ‘SSR programmes can never be genuinely locally owned’. References Bryden, A. & Keane, R., 2009. Security System Reform: What Have We Learned? Results and Trends from the Publication and Dissemination of the OECD DAC. OECD. Brzoska, M., 2006. Introduction: Criteria for Evaluating Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Security Sector Reform in Peace Support Operations. International Peacekeeping, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1-13. Carlowitz, L., 2011. Local Ownership in Practice: Justice System Reform in Kosovo and Liberia. Occasional Paper – № 23. [Online] Available at: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zif-berlin.org%2Fnc%2Fde%2Fschwerpunkte%2Frule-of-law.html%3Fcid%3D2820%26did%3D1973%26sechash%3D7dd014fd&ei=Z7wJVObEDJSRuATTv4CYBg&usg=AFQjCNFsGvoPRvK1ZwDK9aLLuRg5MLAweQ&bvm=bv.74649129,d.c2E&cad=rja [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Donais, T., 2008. Part I: Local Ownership in Theory and in Practice. Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform. [Online] Available at: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=SSR+programmes+can+never+be+genuinely+locally-owned&rlz=1C1CHWA_enIN599IN599&oq=SSR+programmes+can+never+be+genuinely+locally-owned&aqs=chrome..69i57.488j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#q=SSR+programs+can+never+be+genuinely+locally-owned&spell=1 [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Gordon, E., 2014. Security Sector Reform, Local Ownership and Community Engagement. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-18. Hoffmann, J. & et. al., 2012. Responsibility to Protect: From Principle to Practice. Amsterdam University Press. Ismail, O., 2008. Enabling Local Ownership: Participation and Capacity-Building in SSR in Donais, T., 2008. Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform. New Jersey: LIT Verlag Münster. Law, D., 2007. Intergovernmental Organisations and Security Sector Reform. LIT Verlag Munster. McCartney, C. & et. al., 2004 Introduction: Dilemmas of Security Sector Reform in the Context of Conflict Transformation. Bergh of Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management. [Online] Available at: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/dialogue2_ssr_intro.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Nathan, L., 2007a. No Ownership, No Commitment: A Guide to Local Ownership of Security Sector Reform. University of Birmingham. Nathan, L., 2007b. Local Ownership of Security Sector Reform: A Guide for Donors. LSE. Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 2008. Towards a Whole-of-Government Approach to Security System Reform. The Hague: Clingendael, pp. 1-29. OECD, 2011. OECD DAC Handbook on Security System Reform. Principles of SSR. [Online] Available at: http://www.oecd.org/development/incaf/38406485.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. OECD, 2010. Conflict and Fragility the State’s Legitimacy in Fragile Situations: Unpacking Complexity. Security Sector Reform. [Online] Available at: http://www.oecd.org/development/incaf/44794487.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. OECD, 2005. Peace-Building Overview. Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention. [Online] Available at: http://www.oecd.org/development/incaf/35785584.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Rees, E., 2006. Security Sector Reform (SSR) and Peace Operations: “Improvisation and Confusion” from the Field, External Study. Importance of Local Ownership. [Online] Available at: http://www.peacekeepingbestpractices.unlb.org/PBPS/Library/ES_SSR_PEACE_OPS_R EES_PBPS_2006.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Sedra, M., 2010. The Future of Security Sector Reform. The Centre for International Governance Innovation. Scheye, E. & Peake, G., No Date. Unknotting Local Ownership. Chapter 8, pp. 235-260. Security Council Report, 2006. Multilateral and Regional Approaches to Security Sector Reform: Lessons for the Development of a UN SSR Concept. Roundtable co-organised by Slovakia and Canada. [Online] Available at: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/SSR%202%20Slo%20Can%208.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Sriram, C. & et. al., 2007. War, Conflict and Human Rights: Theory and Practice. Routledge. United Nations, 2010. UN Peace Building: An Orientation. The Political Context of Peace Building. [Online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pbso/pdf/peacebuilding_orientation.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. United Nations, 2009. National Ownership of Security Sector Reform. Conceptual Framework and Guiding Principles for Supporting National Ownership. [Online] Available at: http://unssr.unlb.org/Portals/UNSSR/Docs/Ch1-%20National%20Ownership.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. United Nations, 2006. Despite Obstacles, Handover of Reform Responsibility to Local Leaders Should Continue in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Department of Public Information. [Online] Available at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8864.doc.htm [Accessed September 04, 2014]. U.S. Agency for International Development, 2012. Security Sector Reform. Introduction. [Online] Available at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/115810.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Wulf, H., 2004. Security Sector Reform in Developing and Transitional Countries. Empirical Experiences and Preconditions for Reform. [Online] Available at: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/dialogue2_wulf.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Wulf, H., 2006. Security Sector Reform in Developing and Transitional Countries Revisited. Experiences, Problems and Dilemmas. [Online] Available at: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/wulf_handbookII.pdf [Accessed September 04, 2014]. Read More