Security Sector Reforms Crucial

Constantine Chimakure

9 June 2011

editorial

THE debate on security sector reforms has been sidetracked and replaced by lies and cheap politicking.

There are those who argue that the reforms are part of a grand regime-change agenda, a hackneyed argument which we have been subjected to for quite some time.

This strand of argument goes as far as saying the reforms are aimed at removing the current service chiefs in the army, the police, prisons and the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) and replacing them with those acceptable to the three ruling parties.

This line of argument should not be taken seriously as no sane person would take a change of guard to mean reforms. As a nation we have learnt that applying lipstick to a frog does not make it beautiful and hence security sector reforms we should embrace as serious are those which would professionalise the army, police force, the CIO and the prison service.

Professionalising the security sector would ensure that there are certain values, rules and procedures security forces adhere to to earn the respect of the populace.

Having serving officers dabbling in politics should be unacceptable in a democratic society.

It is only after serious reforms, not the removal of personalities, that people like Brigadier-General Douglas Nyikayaramba would think twice before they utter political statements likely to bring the name of the security forces into disrepute. Apart from the lie that the security sector reforms are aimed at certain individuals, another plain lie is that the reforms are not captured in the GPA.

To claim that this issue was never discussed smacks of a deliberate misreading of the GPA and an attempt to hoodwink the masses. These elements clearly take the country’s population for granted as security sector reforms are clearly etched in the pact.

Article XIII exhorts that state organs should not belong to a particular party and should be professional.

We quote: “For the purposes of ensuring that all state organs and institutions perform their duties ethically and professionally in conformity with the principles and requirements of a multi-party democratic system in which all parties are treated equally, the parties have agreed that the following steps be taken:

“(a) that there be inclusion in the training curriculum of members of the uniformed forces of the subjects on human rights, international humanitarian law and statute law so that there is greater understanding and full appreciation of their roles and duties in a multi-party democratic system;

“(b) ensuring that all state organs and institutions strictly observe the principles of the Rule of Law and remain non-partisan and impartial;

“(c) laws and regulations governing state organs and institutions are strictly adhered to and those violating them be penalised without fear or favour; and

“(d) recruitment policies and practices be conducted in a manner that ensures that no political or other form of favouritism is practised.”

Clearly, this articles talks of reforms.

Without doubt the security forces have become an appendage of certain discredited political actors and they have to be rescued from this situation.

The only way of doing so is through enshrining reforms at an institutional level and not to deal with individuals. Equating these reforms to regime change is at best a mischievous lie and at worst a calculated misinformation campaign which should not be taken seriously.

The security sector is a very important component of the state and cannot be done away with. It has to complement and not derail the democratic process to which it should remain subordinated. Under no circumstances can they declare that they are not prepared to salute a person who has been democratically elected.

Respecting the will of the people is what we fought for in the liberation struggle, not having army and police officers instructing us on who we should obey.

AllAfrica – All the Time