[ad_1]
An important phenomenon for the provision of security as a public good is to ensure the political neutrality of security and justice providers. As a state, there must be equal opportunities for employment, retention and promotion within the justice and security system.
Unfortunately, there are cases of abuse of executive and political power aimed at influencing security and justice providers in decision-making. It has always been difficult to find a balance between the need for ministerial responsibility or the responsibility of the politician and the need for professional autonomy of security and justice providers.
Areas of critical concern requiring action include security service recruitment, security sector accountability, appointment and promotion, and operational responsibilities of security service providers. The political elite have had the censored power to sometimes call the security services short, depriving them of their independence to act, so that security is provided in a manner desired by the people. The consequences are corruption, abuse of power, excessive secrecy, favoritism and the collapse of security in the country.
Again, security forces often become a source of insecurity and human rights violations and are used for repression and protection of sectional interests. Since oversight of security agencies is central to the exercise of political power, particular challenges arise in terms of democratic governance and oversight. However, it is incumbent on security and justice providers to maintain their political neutrality in order to build trust in the society they serve.
In many situations, security institutions invoke national security considerations to prevent surveillance of sensitive matters. Some of these are clearly legitimate, but sometimes the justification can turn into a blanket ban on providing information to the public. One possible way to overcome this challenge is to ensure that secrecy is addressed in statutory law that clearly specifies the procedures for classifying and declassifying information.
Moreover, in many cases there is an unspoken principle of deference within security agencies that they defer to the will of the executive or political elites. This is a particular challenge to the requirement of an independent security agency to ensure democratic accountability. In addition, the agency’s deference can sometimes be linked to corruption, with agents bribed to ignore certain human rights violations, for example the civilian population, or to show their prejudices in favor of a particular political group.
The state can meet this challenge by ensuring that oversight bodies such as civil society and independent bodies have the legal means to exercise their functions. Indeed, even if they are respected and capable in terms of expertise, if they do not have a legal framework that defines their responsibilities and legitimizes their decisions, they will never be able to exercise their functions to help security providers. and justice to maintain their political independence.
Ensuring security is not just about an effective police and military. This involves maintaining a permanent dialogue and negotiation between the different factions on the causes of insecurity and the mechanisms for restoring public order. Efforts should be made to ensure the elimination of factionalism in political space so that it does not cripple the agencies responsible for providing security and justice. Otherwise security would be compromised if a party succeeded in recruiting its supporters in the area. Parliament has an important role to play as an arena where factions meet and settle their differences. If it fails to play this role, factions will operate outside the political system, hampering statebuilding efforts and the provision of adequate security and justice.
As national security is a very sensitive issue, political neutrality should be an essential feature of security service providers as well as of any program aimed at strengthening democratic oversight and accountability. In this case, political neutrality can be achieved by selecting recruits solely on the basis of merit. Political party considerations should not play a role as has been the case in Ghana where there are protocol list reports for recruitment into security agencies.
It’s a worrying trend at how politicized security agencies can sometimes be, both in their leadership and at the grassroots. Some uniformed personnel or particular groups within security agencies are linked to powerful political groups. These have their origin in the organization of staff recruitment and promotion. There is generally a problem with equal opportunities and the lack of mechanisms to improve the representation of women, minorities and other groups in the forces. It is therefore necessary to define at which level personnel decisions are taken by political bodies. This process must be free from nepotism and arbitrariness.
By: Emmanuel F. Mantey (Executive Director)
Office for Conflict Management and Security in Africa
E-mail: [email protected]
Source link
