Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Security Sector Reform, Democracy & the Social Contract: from implicit to explicit

 Printable version

What should be the primary, explicit aim of security sector reform (SSR) efforts – democracy or development? What role should the concept of the ‘social contract’ play in SSR? This article from the Journal of Security Sector Management examines the evolution of SSR and the roles of development and democratisation in that concept. It argues that there is a tension between traditional development paradigms and democratisation that is unresolved within the present SSR discourse. To resolve this tension, the SSR discourse should explicitly acknowledge democracy as the overarching objective of SSR.

SSR should be understood as a democratising activity, focused upon security and justice processes, to ensure that the state meets its responsibilities to its citizens. The present SSR discourse focuses on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the state’s delivery of security and justice by ensuring democratic civilian oversight and accountability. Incorporating a social contract perspective into SSR shifts attention from the structures of the state and civil society to the relationship between state and citizen. The social contract, in which citizens’ consent bestows legitimacy on the state, is the core framework for understanding the relationship between state and citizen. It should therefore be a pivotal consideration when conceiving and delivering SSR activities.

Since the end of the Cold War organisations including the UN, the EU and development agencies have developed the concept of SSR. Central to conceptualisations of SSR have been the human security concept, the link between development and security, and good governance. However, the tension between traditional development paradigms and democratisation is unresolved in the current conceptualisation of SSR:

• While democratic principles are inherent within the present concept of SSR, they are seen as forming the context in which to achieve SSR’s developmental objectives.
• The present conception of SSR leaves unanswered the question of whether organisations should support SSR in states moving away from democracy.
• Viewing SSR as primarily a democratising activity would reflect the human security perspective more accurately by making the individual citizen central to SSR activities.
• Democratic and developmental SSR models are not necessarily in conflict. The developmental model aims at creating an environment conducive to development. This in fact equates to creating a democratic environment.

• New tools and methodologies will be required for assessment processes and different outcomes conceived for the inception phases.
• Practitioners’ perceptions and practices will need to evolve in order to accommodate the overarching objective of SSR processes as the enhancement of democracy.
• Organisations supporting SSR will need to develop an understanding of their own implicit view of what the social contract entails.
• Possible outcomes from a social contract perspective in SSR could include, for example, introducing jury service or creating citizens’ armies rather than professional militaries.

Access full text