Published originally in the sphere of politics.
The concept of Security Sector Reform (SSR) has become prominent in the last decade within the development and security research communities. It consists of three main challenges: the development of the institutional framework for both security and development areas; integrated management of national security institutions as well as building professional national security institutions accountable to the civilian authorities. The main goal of this study is to describe the status of the security sector reform in Romania and the role of civil society in that. If early reform within the defense area-as part of security sector-was triggered by the HOT TUB, it is time for civil society think tanks to become stakeholders in the second generation of reforms. The last part of the study describes the contribution of some civil society NGOs to the debate of re? drawing national security laws and calls for a coalition of civil society to analyze and advocate, the second generation of reforms.
Keywords: Security Sector Reform, civil society, national security, liberty and security, accountability
Introduction
National security system of type funamentala represents the democratic condition for good governance and for guaranteeing individual liberty and prosperity. Determination of national security institutions to work efficiently and responsibly while preserving civil liberties is, however, an ambitious and challenging task. The literature considers that reference the object of "security system reform" is represented by three challenges:
(1) the development of an institutional framework for achieving clear security by integrating development policies with the security;
(2) management of all security institutions (defense, public order and intelligence services);
(3) construction of security agencies and institutions responsible for professional and legitimate civil authorities (1)
In Romania, although important steps have been taken in the field of security system reform, especially due to foreign conditionalitatii, in order to meet the requirements for admission in NATO or the EU, the process of consolidation of democracy and of systemic transformation of the security institutions and improvement of mechanisms for democratic control seems stuck. Blocking the strategic planning process, in accordance with the national security strategy of 2006, "freezing" the package of laws on national security in Parliament or the entry into force, on the door from the inside out, law No. 298/2008 concerning the retention of data generated or processed by providers of electronic communications services starnesc public concerns. Both civil society and national security institutions advertise a number of legislative issues which prevent both the efficiency of the activity of security institutions, as well as the improvement of mechanisms of democratic civilian control.
"Transitioning" Romanian included-as importantly-institutionalization of mechanisms of democratic civilian control of all national security institutions. But joining NATO and the EU has assumed a set of criteria for evaluating the reform focuses, rather, on defense, the transformation of the intelligence services with a pace less brisk, being made "self-contained", civil society being interested in the 1990s of issues, such as the unveiling of the lustratia, Security, or listening to cell phones. The first "revolutionary measures", such as de-Communisation and de-kaghebizarea the army, transferring control over the army and Security Department to stop the use of conscripts as free labour force in the national economy have been initiated by a group of young officers, called the Action Committee for democratization of the Army (TUB). Today civil society has an interest to continue this process by gaining some competent to become an important actor of the system reform of national security.
The aim of this study is to present the progress of the reform of the security system but also on the contribution of civil society-real and potential — encourage a new phase of reform, generating debate and strategies for change in national security laws.
What is the reform of the security system?
Freedom and security are two desiderata that social tensions and heated debates arise when designing their democracies national security policies. In the vision of Hobbes, end with a State citizen social contract: he assigns a portion of the rights in Exchange for the protection provided by the State. That's why the State has the obligation to maintain a security system (army, police, gendarmerie and information services) in order to comply with the contractual obligation towards the citizens. There is concern that these institutions can trigger coups or may infringe on citizens ' rights and freedoms. Consequently, in the process of consolidation of democracy there has been a tendency to restrict the powers of the institutions through the establishment of militarized areas of civilian control mechanisms. On the other hand, citizens ' rights and freedoms have been codified in international documents such as the Universal Declaration of human rights or the European Charter of human rights and taken in nearly all Constitutions and national legislation. However, the decortication civil rights represent, rather, a challenge that needs to be done on a daily basis.
Today, globalization phenomena such as geopolitical bring extraordinary challenges for the system of national security (terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime networks) that require legislative flexibility to allow the national security institutions to fulfil its tasks, without violating civil rights. Technological development allows not only the miniaturization and niversalization interceptarilor of information services of the State, but also by private security firms or their use by terrorist groups. Therefore, ongoing public policy and civil liberties rights simultaneously with realization of national security require a paradigm shift and re-thinking the national security system. However, the reform of the security system is not just the preserve of institutions or NATO security but requires the involvement of civil society, through the media, NGOs or think-tanks.
The role of civil society in security system reform
A democratic society is not only a separation of powers in the State, but also the existence of informal mechanisms and non-governmental organizations, as well as civil society organizations, who may exercise civil control, indirectly. Institutions such as an independent media or NGOs and independent research institutes (think-tanks) should contribute to the dissemination of information towards civil society concerning security matters, creating civil expertise.
After 1989, the civilian society was interested in important aspects, but, of the national security system reform, especially moral reform (lustratia, condemnation of the security officers have committed crimes against humanity or wiretapping phones). There were very few foundations and organizations active in the field of security policy, such as the Euro-Atlantic Association "Manfred Wörner formally travelled" EURISC, George c. Marshall Association-Romania and NATO. However, the expertise these organizations appears to be confined to organising conferences and debates, their overall role in the elaboration of fundamental studies or strategies for security policy, being limited. Moreover, after joining NATO and the EU, their activity has decreased. On the other hand, appeared a great interest of other civil society organizations for a more nuantata and professional involvement in this area.
It would impose today to talk about the second generation of reform of the security system-SSR 2.0 focused on integrated and complex approach to democratic reform, professionalization, both involved in the political elite of the democratic control and civil personnel, improvement of the mechanism of crisis management, realistic assessment of security risks, rewriting the laws of security and civil society participation as expert group (stakeholders) in the reform process. We will tell about some conclusions resulting from the projects coordinated by the Academy of Advocacy and the Institutional analysis and Development-CADI. The main aspects that require a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to security system transformation are:
a. Size: although democratic were passed laws permitting the democratic civil control, there are no guarantees that the rules and the mechanisms of democratic civilian control are applied;
b. The moral dimension: lustration law Blocking, the absence of legal debate, guilt or convictions of some security officers for violating fundamental human rights affects the reliability of the national security institutions and institutiiile State, in general;
c. The economic dimension: efficiency and effectiveness of labour security institutions, duplication of tasks, the waste of resources, the legislativdesuet-what prevents the fulfillment of current missions of security institutions in the context of the new challenges of globalization but rather lax to permit violations of human rights.
Obstacles in the way of security system reform
Part of the problems defined by this study could be solved through the promotion of a new legislation, the process initiated in 2005, along with the promotion of a new National Security Strategy, has been blocked, although the captase attention of civil society and the media. Everyone agrees that the laws of organization and functioning of the intelligence services or the management of emergency situations, adopted under the pressure of the events of 1990-1991, this family character. Trials of perfecting security legislation occurred in each legislature after 1997, laws proposed in the 2004-2008 legislature being yet another debate, in the Senate. Some shortcomings were noted within civil society programmes. Thus, the Academy of Advocacy, along with Pro democracy, Journalists and Society, organised a public hearing in 2006 at the Parlamentului2 Palace, analyzing the proposals of the package of laws on national security, after which resulted, inter alia, the following shortcomings:
• one of the recurring themes of many testimonials is connected with the negative influence of the "memory" of the former Securitate, generating fear spread that the legislation may grant excessive powers of secret services nerestrucurate;
• certain provisions of some of the principles contradict the National Security Strategy (2006), by limiting the possibility of democratic control, maintaining status permanent impression exeptionala, with an extremely limited legal liability of information officer;
• parliamentary control is a mechanism for democratic control of insufficient intelligence services;
• need to establish precise skills for officers, especially the problem of some investigations in view of producing evidence in court;
• the work of the intelligence services cannot be categorised as State secret in its entirety;
• funding for the integral and exclusive services from State budget, eliminating the phrase "legal sources";
• provisions that permit supervision to be prolonged for 6 months, the right to carry out services of economic and financial activities, the maintenance of military character with the right to carry gun, scrambling the excessive as well as law officer to require any person support are considered unacceptable.
So "witnesses" and experts have produced a series of proposals not taken into account any today and promoting legislation came into the grinder political struggle. In the 1996-2000 legislature were submitted to Parliament four bills, the other seven projects between 2001-2004, but none of these has not been adopted. The progress of the projects submitted in 2004-2008, according to the Chamber of Deputies website is: "forwarded to the Senate: 25.04.2007". One of the explanations (more or less conspirationiste) from the blocking of the process of reform of the security system is that law enforcement officers cover the services of information policy and mass media have created the "smokescreen" that allowed blocking reform process, being interested in preserving the status quo. So I think the participants of the Forum debates organized within the project "freedom and security" of the CADI. As a conclusion of those hearings may be asserted as main obstacles in promoting such laws were related to: the way of the elaboration of the draft law of top-down type of "inflation" of proposed risks and threats (what they were offering services more powers than national security Law) and the total removal of the President from the mechanisms of democratic control.
Recently, within the project "freedom and security" carried out by the Centre for the analysis and development Institutionala3 in 2008, opened a civil society coalitions but also experts from public institutions have been identified the following obstacles and solutions for security reform:
• Although the normative framework provides mechanisms to ensure respect for human rights there are case studies of human rights established by the ECHR, as well as the case of Rotaru v. Romania in 2000; The Ministry of Justice has proposed a set of regulations to prevent violations of DO in information (Cai Selma);
• (National Security Law) … is not desueta and incorporates principles and norms derived from changing strategic and political status of the country with our country's accession to NATO and the EU. Postponing adoption of new legislation in this field has resulted in SRI to draw anime their own internal rules and restructuring, within the legal framework in force, to try to adapt to the need to respond to the challenges of the present security risks and (George Maior);
• Ike Divya and R Rosales argues the fact that complex security guarantees individual freedom and giving up some freedoms may bring the company's vulnerabilities and proposes the diversification of mechanisms for democratic control of intelligence services.
• Caroline Dara synthesizes experience and Advocacy Academy proposes engaging civil society in the reform process of the security system.
Within the same project, Center for analysis and institutional development (CADI) organized, in February this year, the debate on "civil society for security reform" debate to which took part experts from political institutions, directors of intelligence services and civil society leaders such as Cristian Preda, Robins, Igual, Sorin Cucerai, Nagib, Sever Voinescu, George Maior Mihai Razvan Ungureanu, Iulian Fota, Constantin Dudu Ionescu Vlad Topan, Aurora, Marian Zulean and others. The Conference has gone from the presumption that there is a window of opportunity for reform of the security system, from the perspective of civil society.
The first argument is related to the fact that international institutions and organisations have put on the agenda the issue of reform of the Security (of the sector). Thus, the United Nations programme of UNDP called "Justice and Security Sector Reform", OECD programme "Security System and Governance," European Commission "ESDP Support to Security Sector Reform" is carrying out programmes and assistance on this matter.
Secondly, the election of November 2008 brought a parliamentary majority that can promote security reform of legislation, rules and practices of democratic civilian control. Civil society's role is to provide expertise, studies and advocacy actions to enforce the Government's agenda of reform of the security system.
Thirdly, civil society grew and acquired expertise and interest in the field. There was already a successful case of this kind of coalition in Bulgaria. Were printed collections of best practices, such as manual "public Supervision of the security sector", prepared by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Centre for the Democratic control over the armed forces (DCAF) in Geneva, which presents the role that NGOs can play in the democratic supervision of the security sector. As a result, the proposed establishment of a CADI of coalitions of non-governmental organizations interested in the subject, able to elaborate studies and to provide expertise and keen to participate in actions of advocacy for reform of the security system.
Conclusions
Security system reform is an important concern for transforming societies after the Cold War, both former Communist countries but also in the Western world. If the first generation of reforms had as their objective the army reform (including reducing) and adaptation to NATO requirements, a second generation of reforms-SSR 2.0 (sometimes etichetata with the moniker of "transformation") is developing, especially after the events of 11 September 2001.
In Romania, reform of the security system-SSR 2.0 includes three important issues (moral dimension, economic dimension of effectiveness and efficiency-institutions and democratic dimension-improvement of mechanisms of democratic civilian control). They have tried to be solved "top-down" through a legislative package through the national security strategy of 2006 but the process was stalled. That hypothesis was launched reform ended with the handing over the files of security and decrease towards the CNSAS average age of information officers ', that you have left the institutions "to work" but both international experience and investigations of civil society shows the need to continue the reform, a new floor. I'm getting more information about the involvement of information officers in corruption scandals or insufficient documentation of the prosecutors with relevant information for criminal, about failures related to the objectives of regional policy or about the lack of auditing and the number of officers.
However, there are positive auspices as this can be achieved in the near future. There is a comfortable majority government, an international interest and expertise but also increasing the expertise of civil society in this area. Both intelligence services bosses, Presidents of parliamentary control committees, CSAT and civil society have identified as common denominator the need for reform of the security system. Issues arise when the question arises as to how to continue this reform.
CADI, behind the project "Freedom and society" considers that civil society can assume an important role by formation of a stakeholder coalitions of civil society already approved about 20 NGOs. An important step would be the establishment of a Committee comprising all the major actors, like presidential commissions that would encompass and the coalition of civil society. In order not to put the cart before it would be useful to do a study of evaluation method of audit/functioning of the security institutions and to accomplish the strategic objectives, the development of a comprehensive strategy to transformational security system and then a law framework of organization and functioning of the security system.
NOTES
A draft of this study was presented as a guide for civil society Conference debate for security reform, since February 2009. The Conference was organized under the auspices of the Centre for analysis and institutional development (CADI) and the Balkan Trust for Democracy
1 Theodore Winkler (2003), "Managing change. The reform and democratic control of the security sector and international order ", in Security Sector Reform: Institutions, Society and Good Governance, edited by a. David Bryden and Ph. Fluri, Baden-baden: Nomos.
2 View the Academy of Advocacy, "individual Freedom versus national security. The balance between transparency and secrecy, "available at: http://securitate.audieripublice.ro/
3 View the center of analysis and institutional development, the project "freedom and security", available at www.cadi.ro/index.php/vizualizare/articole/proiecte/77
MARIAN ZULEAN is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Business and public administration, Bucharest University, and Deputy director of the Institute of Popular Studies.
