See original blog here.
Security Sector Reform is a necessary but complex part of most post-war transitions that often fails. Nadine Ansorg (Reader in International Conflict Analysis here at the University of Kent) and Sabine Kurtenbach reflect on the challenges of such reforms and how the UK can contribute to building more sustainable, accountable, and effective security institutions in conflict-affected states.
Security Sector Reform (SSR) has become an integral part of conflict intervention and post-war reconstruction in many states transitioning from war, authoritarianism, or internal violence. While the overarching goal of SSR in these contexts is to develop a democratic, accountable, and effective security apparatus, the practical implementation of these reforms has often been difficult, and in many cases, unsuccessful. Drawing on the findings of this recently published book, in this article we reflect on SSR’s complexity and core challenges and suggest how UK policy-makers could help make SSR in conflict-affected states more successful and sustainable.
The goals and contexts of SSR
SSR aims to strengthen the security apparatus of states, ensuring that it serves not only the interests of the elites but also the broader population. In democratic transitions, civil-military relations and democratic oversight of security forces are pivotal to the reform process. In post-war scenarios, however, SSR involves additional layers of complexity, including disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of armed groups. SSR has often been driven by external actors, particularly those from the global North, who bring significant financial resources and political weight to the process.
This involvement, however, is not without controversy. As we point out in our book, the external imposition of Western governance models, particularly the Weberian central state, often overlooks realities on the ground. Although United Nations Security Council Resolution 2151 (2014) acknowledges the sovereign right of countries to determine their own SSR processes, international actors often continue to dominate the reform agenda. The case of Afghanistan stands as a stark example of how externally driven reforms, when not properly localized, can fail dramatically.
The core problems of SSR
The challenges confronting SSR efforts often recur across multiple contexts. Our book highlights three of the most important: the lack of local ownership, the unintentional promotion of authoritarianism, and the incomplete or disjointed nature of reforms.
- Lack of local ownership: Despite the acknowledgment that local contexts and actors must be involved in SSR, international programmes often prioritize a Western, state-centric model that emphasizes re-establishing the state’s monopoly on the use of force. This model is not always appropriate for conflict-affected regions in the Global South, where informal security arrangements and non-state actors may play a significant role in maintaining order, but often contradict existing rule of law frameworks. As a result, SSR often fails to align with local needs, leaving reforms ineffective and fragile.
- Unintended authoritarianism: Donors and international organizations typically direct SSR funds to central governments to bolster their ability to provide security. However, this focus can unintentionally support authoritarian tendencies, as governments expand executive power at the expense of democratic accountability. While SSR aims to build democratic institutions, in practice, it often reinforces centralized control – as seen in the DR Congo or Haiti. This can be detrimental to long-term peace and democratization.
- Incomplete and disjointed reforms: SSR tends to follow a linear process, starting with DDR, followed by military and police reforms, and judicial reform, often as an afterthought. This fragmented approach leaves significant gaps in the security architecture. For instance, judicial reform is often overlooked, even though a functioning justice system is critical to holding security forces accountable. When reforms are piecemeal and incomplete, the risk of reverting to violence remains high, as seen in countries like El Salvador.
The shift towards stabilization over transformation
One of the more concerning trends in recent years has been the shift in SSR towards stabilisation and containment, rather than comprehensive societal transformation. The focus on short-term security measures, such as managing the immediate threats of war and violence, tends to overlook the deeper, structural issues that caused the conflict in the first place. While stabilisation can appear to be an immediate imperative, too often the search for quick wins proves not only illusory but also self-defeating. However, the long-term success of SSR depends on addressing the root causes of violence, including social inequalities, lack of economic opportunities, and political exclusion.
Disconnect between strategy and reality
While existing frameworks for Security Sector Reform (SSR) promoted by the UK, EU, UN, or OECD often emphasize key principles such as local ownership, inclusivity, human rights protection, or gender mainstreaming, these ideals frequently remain aspirational. Though there is a clear commitment on paper, the realities of SSR in conflict-affected environments often reveal a disconnect between these high-level goals and actual outcomes. As a result, SSR efforts often fall short of meeting the complex needs of post-war societies.
Several factors contribute to this gap. A primary issue is the securitization of SSR, where the focus shifts from building long-term sustainable security institutions to addressing immediate threats. This is compounded by the pressure for quick stabilization to create short-term peace and prevent further conflict, which often results in prioritizing quick solutions over holistic reforms. Counterinsurgency measures also often dominate the agenda, focusing on military and police capacities while neglecting the broader components of justice and governance.
Additionally, SSR’s long-term objectives are difficult to uphold in fluid and unstable post-conflict environments. Limited understanding of local dynamics, restricted access to key areas, a lack of institutional knowledge, and complex contracting arrangements all pose significant barriers to success. These challenges make it harder for international actors to effectively monitor, adapt, and ensure the implementation of SSR principles, creating a cycle where short-term goals are prioritized over the kind of deep-rooted transformation needed for lasting peace.
Recommendations for UK policy-makers on SSR
This weakness in upholding policy ideals regarding issues such as local ownership, inclusivity, and human rights protections highlights the need for stronger commitments to ensure these principles are embedded in SSR programmes in practice. The UK and other international actors must not only strengthen the foundations of these commitments but also “walk the talk” by ensuring that policies designed to promote inclusivity and accountability are genuinely respected and effectively implemented on the ground. Without this, SSR risks being reduced to rhetoric rather than a transformative process for building sustainable peace.
To help strengthen the contribution post-war SSR can make to sustainable peace and inclusive governance, the UK should redouble its focus on five areas:
Local ownership: To help strengthen the role of local actors and communities in decision-making, UK SSR programmes should engage more in comprehensive local analyses to understand existing informal security structures, the role of non-state actors in maintaining security, and the root causes of the conflict. Tailored approaches will better address the specific security needs of local populations while reducing the risk of imposing external solutions that may not resonate with local realities.
Inclusivity: Strengthening gender and minority representation in SSR can boost programmes’ potential to address broader societal inequalities. The UK should advocate for gender-sensitive SSR, recognizing that women and minorities are often disproportionately affected by conflict but also play critical roles in peacebuilding. Working together with local actors of change, the UK could encourage women’s active participation in security institutions and broader SSR processes to create more inclusive and equitable systems.
Human rights protections: Strengthening human rights accountability mechanisms in state institutions and security forces can help rein in impunity and violations. The UK should place a greater premium on establishing robust accountability structures within the security sector to prevent abuses and ensure human rights compliance. It should also incorporate clear, measurable human rights benchmarks in its SSR programmes – ensuring progress is regularly assessed. Furthermore, real-time monitoring mechanisms, such as human rights observers within security operations, can help ensure that human rights standards are upheld in practice.
Sustainability of reforms: Emphasis needs to shift from short-term stabilization and quick fixes towards deeper institutional reform. SSR programmes should be designed with a long-term perspective, emphasizing sustainable institution-building over short-term security gains. This means setting realistic timelines for SSR efforts and ensuring that adequate resources are committed for extended periods as much as possible, particularly in sectors like justice reform and human rights protections that often receive less attention in the rush to stabilize – but which are critical for holding security providers accountable.
Promote regional and international coordination: The UK should enhance coordination with other international actors, including the EU, UN, and regional organizations, to ensure a cohesive approach to SSR. Fragmented efforts by multiple donors can create disjointed reforms, as seen in Afghanistan, so it is essential to promote synergies between various international initiatives. Through partnerships, the UK can leverage collective resources and expertise to implement more comprehensive and context-sensitive SSR programs.
In these five ways, the UK can contribute to building more sustainable, accountable, and effective security institutions in conflict-affected states, ultimately supporting the long-term goal of peace and stability.
Dr Nadine Ansorg is Reader in International Conflict Analysis at the University of Kent.
Sabine Kurtenbach is President of the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA).
The views and opinions expressed in posts on the Rethinking Security blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the network and its broader membership.