The impact of non-state actors on security sector reforms and democratic oversight
International comprehensive approaches to democratic peace and security and civilian oversight imply the strategic integration of all relevant players and stakeholders, including civil society associations, into the decision- and policy-making process. The bottom-up creation of democratic normative spaces (Schirch 2010) premises pluralistic peace and security models, based on institutional cooperation, multilateral decision-making, inclusiveness, interdependence and power-sharing mechanisms (Linklater 2016: 77). The reform of security institutions via security sector reform (SSR) approaches in hybrid orders requires not only building democratic power (instruments) but also checking power (accountability) (van Veen and van den Boogaard 2016: 307), to which non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are expected to contribute. Networks, multi-actor communication and expert debate represent the prerequisites of comprehensive approaches to security, to which SSR - as key approach of the EU, UN, OSCE, NATO or US strategies for reforming security in fragile and insecure states - subscribes (Baciu 2017).
NGOs constitute significant types of actors in hybrid orders. Post-Cold War, they were perceived to have a great utility in designing and implementing peace programmes, by playing a role in ‘changing preferences’ (Mearsheimer 1994/5: 7) of key players as well as in the formation of‘hybrid orders’ and ‘infrastructures’ of security governance (Mac Ginty 2011; Luck- ham and Kirk 2013; Bagayoko el al. 2016; Richmond 2016; Stepputat 2018). The estimated number of NGOs in Pakistan in 2010 was approximately 60,000-70,000 and 20% of the total EU financial assistance to Pakistan between 2007 and 2013 occurred via NGOs/international non-governmental organisations (INGOs).
The theories of global governance and multi-agency security claim that local actors can advance security sector reforms and ‘comprehensive security’ approaches. They can do so through strengthening accountability and governance capacity and by having a positive and emancipatory impact on peace and security in general. 1 argue that this can involve generating input legitimacy (citizens participation), output legitimacy (quality of political outcomes), strengthening accountability and ‘elite pacting’ processes, i.e. controlled transfer of power and authority from the military to civilian actors (see also Baciu 2019). These functions are assumed to be crucial
Impact of non-state actors 101
to democratic oversight of the military and reforms in the security sector. This chapter tests these functions and assesses the impact of local actors on peace and security.