Defence Reform

Donor support to defence reform occurs on three distinct levels:

• the strategic level, which includes policy guidance and expert advice for the  development of a national security and defence vision, whilst facilitating political consensus around national security priorities and agenda;
• the operational level, which revolves around performance and financial management capacity and good practices;
• the tactical level, which focuses on military capability, including equipment, training, infrastructure, as well as, basic human needs such as food and shelter.

SSG/R has been fundamentally anchored in human security since its conception in 1990s. However the past decades of SSG/R related programming have generated a donor portfolio that is heavily focused on state institutions, formal mechanisms and state-centric operational military capability approaches.  Good practice recorded by ISSAT in this area reflects the benefits of focusing on people’s security when defining reform objectives. International partners supporting defence reform need to increasingly shift away from purely state-centric approaches and strive to better integrate human security needs. Institutional reform is still relevant but only when these serve the people, peace and prosperity. This can only be done through in-depth community-based assessments, contextually-adapted stakeholder analyses and  functional understanding of the local security and justice system. A people-centred approach to defence reform should not only focus on local community security needs, but it should also address the needs of the men and women, members of the security sector.

An underpinning enabling factor for state institutions to contribute to people’s security and safety is management, oversight and accountability reforms. Making the defence sector more inclusive and more representative of the population is an additional cross-cutting goal for international partners supporting defence reform. This typically includes particular attention to gender equality, due to the strategic advantages that full diversity brings to decision-making, the operational advantages of being able to conduct gendered analysis of the operating environment and he tactical advantages that come with being able to operate with all genders in a target society. The ability of armed forces to recruit women into defence sector has become central to defence development goals.  

A defence sector that represents the society’s population composition is essential to ensure its legitimacy and cohesion. It requires the construction of joint vision and common identity which precedes that of the various (re-)integrated groups. It might also involve overcoming educational, language and other barriers which might hinder recruitment or career progression, or negatively Impact overall organizational climate.

Every country has had a different approach to defence reform. However, there are common features to most processes and international partners would benefit from recognising those. In many contexts, where donors have imported external models of reform, this has typically led to very poor or unsustainable results. Defence reform processes should always be driven by local priorities and solutions.

• Defence reform always starts from an articulation of the problem that has instigated the need for reform;
• It is usually informed by the national realities and resources available to the defence sector, as well as the agendas of the various relevant stakeholders;
• A national dialogue is usually necessary to identify the possible solutions reflecting local conditions andthe broader defence sector configuration at hand;
• In most contexts a national vision would put forward the expected impact or end-state of the reform process;
• International partners’ engagements would be designed around national vision and priorities;
• International partners’ defence reform engagements need to feed towards a coherent objective shared between the international community and its national partners;

Operational details of international partners engagements would then be determined internally by each partner but coordinated nationally and internationally, including timelines, sequencing, key milestones and potential benchmarks.

Every reform process has various implications on multiple levels. Financially, donors need to better adapt defence reform solutions to fiscal affordability considerations. Fiscal affordability refers to a country’s independent sources of income in addition to the various types of aid and foreign assistance. Usually fragile and conflict affected settings have a limited fiscal space. As such, defining and staying within the fiscal envelope is essential to the security sector’ institutions sustainable capability.

Defining reform objectives without a necessary management and performance assessment might undermine the reform process altogether. Inventory and performance assessments are important mechanisms to determine the alignment between current capabilities and requirements. These assessments provide necessary technical elements to inform the defence reform process. It is also an opportunity to identify opportunities to improve efficiency and create synergies.

The political repercussions of any reform process are usually deeply trenched into common practices and inform the overall defence system. Reform reshuffles distribution and access to power. In many cases around the world, the leadership’s interest may be to maintain status quo. Rent seeking and misappropriation can create incentives for the sector to oppose reforms, and job attribution in the security sector can be the result of an attempt to “buy peace” by integrating former warring parties. Reforms may also be perceived as an attempt to shift power away from an overrepresented group in the security sector. Understanding and skilfully navigating political dynamics and implications of defence reform is key for its success.

Last but not least, the social dimension is at the heart of a people-centred approach to defence reform. Reform involves livelihoods and people. The social and cultural consequences of loss of income, status and welfare need to be adequately considered and mitigated against. This step is crucial to prevent reigniting a cycle of violence whereby former defence personnel join dissident groups. Experience shows that practices such as “re-hatting” and demobilising personnel often do not lead to expected outcomes. In countries with limited social benefits, the social implications of defence reform often amount to correctly managing personnel retirement, which does not receive enough traction by the international community.