Parliamentary Oversight Of Securiry And Intelligence Agencies In Germany And India

=== 4cf497ba506b107c39f05307158b090d17cef9f9_434087_1 ===

FACULTATEA DE ȘTIINȚE POLITICE

SPECIALIZAREA: COMPARATIVE LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES

BACHELOR’S THESIS

2017

PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT OF SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES IN GERMANY AND INDIA

1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1.SECURITY SECTOR REFORM

2.INTELLIGENCE SERVICES

3.PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT OF SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES IN GERMANY AND INDIA

CONCLUSIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2

INTRODUCTION

Parliaments are viewed as the foundation of a democracy. Institutions of the government can’t exist without parliamentary oversight, that includes all organisations of the security sector. Instead of defence sector the term security sector is used, as the military is the most important guardians of the state. The other guardians are the police, border guards, paramilitary units, intelligence services and private security organisations. Parliaments have to develop an inclusive security policy and keep track of all security sector organizations. Parliamentary oversight is complete when it oversees the five aspects of these agencies, such as the policies, personnel, finances, operations and procurement of equipment and weapons systems.

The parliamentary oversight of the security sector is not a goal, the main principle is to keep the government accountable and to secure a balance between the security policy and society by aligning the goals, policies and procedures of the military and political leaders. In many countries, it is not the fear of military coups, but the alignment of military and political goals, that remains the biggest concern for parliaments.

Many parliaments, especially those in democracies in transit or being consolidated, often face difficulties in understanding the vast and complex security sector, getting relevant information and assessing military data. Yet parliaments in consolidated democracies also face new challenges when it comes to parliamentary oversight over new military missions or security and defence policy on a supranational level. All these problems are aggravated by the lack of parliamentary staff and education in the field of defence and security matters.

In Europe, the issue of democratic and parliamentary control of the armed forces is a period of renaissance. The point is on the political project of European countries for a lot of reasons.

3

The cancellation of military conscription in European countries (France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands ) started a debate on the democratic verification of the armed forces. Many columnists are scared that a volunteer force is complicate to control than a conscripted army.

In the last decade, European countries have been involved in the reduction of the armed force, as they have seen an increasing of the responsibilities assigned to the military in peace missions. The processes of reorganization and reduction the military means a less budget and more responsibilities for the military that set political and military relations under stress.

Military business takes place at the international level, the parliamentary control of international military and institutions, EU and NATO understanding is becoming relevant. At the requirement of international organizations, NATO and OSCE, postcommunist countries in Central and Eastern Europe have had to restyle political-military relations according to democratic principles.

Without the democratization of the political- military relations, these countries weren’t allowed to be members of western international organizations. In transition countries, political democratic reform was before security sector reform; they made new constitutions, legislatures, installing ministerial control over the military. This was important, as security sector reform should be reformed in a democratic manner, not only meeting functional military demands but also attaining the demands of societies.

Intelligence services can be described as those governmental services responsible for the collection, processing and dissemination of information, in order to ensure the security of the society and the freedom of its citizens. Intelligence services mainly operate in a secret and clandestine manner. The types of threats to national security that might require action by the intelligence services are defined by law in many countries. These types of threats may consist of espionage, sabotage, terrorism and subversion; actions or intentions of foreign governments, organisations or individuals. Some countries, such as New Zealand, also include economic prosperity in their definition of security. Intelligence services also engage

4

in counter- intelligence, which is defined as activities concerned with identifying and the threat to security posed by hostile intelligence services or organisations or by individuals engaged in espionage, sabotage, subversion or terrorism. Intelligence services are involved in covert actions, influencing or manipulating foreign governments, institutions, organisations and individuals. The goal of intelligence services is to provide the required valid and information concerning national security issues to governmental policy makers.

5

1.SECURITY AREA REFORM

The security area comprises institutions and agencies of the state with the legal authority to use or to order force.1 Usually these institutions are the Military (Air Force, Army, Navy), Border Police and Paramilitary organizations. The transformation of the security area occurs in order to organize systematic clarity on the premise of substantive and democratic control. The emphasis on accountability and clarity sets security area transformation in the context of the governance project, characterized by a concern for democracy, human rights and the principle of law.

A non- evolved security area is similar with the concept of weak governance that refers to politics, incorrect legal systems, the intemperance of executive power, civil community which is not implied in public life and corruption.

Regarding the nature and qualification of security area transformation, the reforms are necessary.

An unreformed security area fails to prevent and causes conflicts, leading to suffering and poverty. NGOs working in conflict sectors report that a malfunction security area is an obstacle to peace and stability:

Agents of security that do not play a legitimate and democratically accountable role in providing security for citizens not only are unable to prevent conflicts occurring but can also be a source of violence.2

1 B. Hans, P. Fluri, A. Johnsson (eds.), Handbook for Parliamentarians N°5, Parliamentary Oversight of the Security Sector: Principles, Mechanisms and Practices, IPU/DCAF, Geneva: Belgrade, 2003: 16.

2 L. Damian, R. Luckham, Michael Von Tangen Page, A Goal Oriented Approach to Governance and Security Sector Reform, London, 2002.

6

Security area transformation, in the meaning of the provision of safety in an efficient manner in democratic control brings internal and external stability.3 Internally, security area transformation remove causes that lead to instability, as civil and military relations. Externally, a democratically supervised security area is regarded as a regional building measure. Security area transformation sustain stability which is a fundamental condition for democratization and economic progress.

A non- evolved security area that leads to insecurity, does not realize an adequate investment climate. A security area in corruption that constitutes an obstacle to the national economy is not able to sustain economic progress. Security area transformation does not mean only investment in new equipment, forming and offering service employees salaries in the national activity market. In the long term, security area contributes to sustainable economic progress.

As the security area services are managing, on favour of the democratically political leaders, the monopoly of the state is carried out by a professional work force, which distinguish it from other governmental institutions. Professionalism implies dedication, the qualification to realize the tasks and orders and to provide security in the context of the dynamic changing security environment. Professionalism also suppose that the officers corps operates in a disciplined manner. Without professionalism, democratic surveillance is useless as the military’s political leaders are not assured whether their orders will be applied on account of a deficiency of discipline and quality. Professionalism implies that the political superiors trust that the servicemen are prepared to their job.

Security sector area enhances democratization by realizing a legal framework which subordinates the security services to the legitimate political authority.

3 T. Edmunds, ‘Defining Security Sector Reform’, in Proceedings of the 2001 Conference, Geneva, Oxford, 2001.

7

Installing a legal framework which sustains civilian predominance is regarded as the background for successful democratization efforts in countries in transition. In principle, the legal framework focuses on core values, accountability and transparency. The relations between the political leadership and the security services should be governed by those concepts of democratizing security.

8