Combating Internal Security Threats (with updates)

 

Combating Internal Security Threats Dr. Govind Prasad Thapa

Reports of gross human and material loss due to criminal activities, rampant gun-totting culture, and dwindling rule of law situation make any sensible citizen’s heart shudder. Each of these news stories indicates how wretched the law and order situation has become in the country. These present-day security problems are the consequences of cumulative effects of our erroneous decisions in the past. In the past, we have reacted to security crisis incrementally, not systematically; we have responded with haste driven by political insistence, not with patience and wisdom; we acted out of compulsion and we compromised with values, norms and standards. Providing security is about managing risks. And governance and risk management are closely linked. Governance is an expression of responsible risk management; effective risk management requires sensitive and efficient governance. The government’s recent decision to come up with a special security plan is a welcome step. The government deserves credit for it. However, there are skepticisms about its outcome: Will it be effective? Will it be a waste? Will it be counterproductive? There are also questions about the government’s apathy or incapacity to recognize other equally important security issues that the country is facing. This article aims to scrutinize the recent steps (although still vague) taken by the government with the intention of improving security in the country. The government’s recent decision to come up with a special security plan is a welcome step. However, there are skepticisms about its outcome: Will it be effective? Will it be a waste? Anyone can take risky decisions. However, risk assessment—identification, analysis and evaluation— and intelligence is the crux for the success of any endeavor. In other words, it means knowing about ourselves and the adversary or the inherent threats. A close look at the special security plan confirms that it does not take a holistic view of the security situation of Nepal. This could be because of the near non-existing or dilapidated national security policy and ‘politicization’ and ‘militarization’ of National Security Council. Any governance relies on well-informed decision making. Good analysis can tilt the odds in favor of a safe and successful operation. It is easier and wiser to assess risks in the planning stages of a function than in its execution. Often, the government machinery responsible for this intricate intelligence process is found indifferent, slow or incompetent. The government’s decision to use extra force by enrolling 10 thousand security personnel seems to be immature. This decision allow some inherent risks—extra cost and institutional incapacity and inefficiency to carry out the operation. Let me explain these in detail. First, there is no doubt that this security package is very costly (over four billion rupees). More public funds will be (ab)used to maintain the large force for many years to come, which will be daunting for a country like Nepal. The country certainly cannot afford to keep a ‘white elephant’. Moreover, if all political parties demonstrate sincere commitment, the existing law and order problem is not going to last for a long time. The operational cost of the plan could be reduced by alternatively utilizing the already enrolled but unutilized or underutilized resources. The government could have thought of utilizing retired army and police personnel on contract for this mission. Second, there is every chance that the unplanned and poorly carried out operation will face failure. The institutional capacity to carry out the special task is important for the success of an operation like this. The laws and policies, the infrastructures of police, the intelligence system, a modern approach to administration and management, public trust and confidence in the police, morale, and quality of police training and resources and work culture are governing factors that help achieve success in any mission. There is a need to closely assess the efficiency and improve the current capability of security agencies including the oversight body—Ministry of Home. Third, there are always chances of excessive use of force during such ‘operations’. Fake ‘encounters’ may worsen the situation—it could jeopardize talks taking place with various armed groups. Fourth, the implementation of the program is difficult unless there is a consensus among the key stakeholders—ministries, political parties, civic societies, municipalities, corporate and business houses and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Security has to be integrated and combined, lack of which will produce confusion, rivalry and opposition. Political consensus is paramount. It is often reported that political leaders and parties protect criminals. These leaders blame police for arresting their ‘political activists’. Any plan must be supported by the people at the ground level. Security is a holistic issue. The government needs to recognize the usefulness of integrating the security culture within each and every organization’s nervous system. It has to be rather integrated with public or private, development or defense, and political or economic sectors. It is necessary to understand that security is a fundamental need in every sphere such as the service or the manufacturing industry. Each independent enterprise, public or private, must also recognize that they too have roles to play. The business houses must realize that the government’s industrial security force alone cannot address internal and operational security risks. For these, the enterprises must have their own indigenous security system woven into their business functions. Tomorrows’ public security programs should be focused on safeguarding human rights and democratic freedoms. The security system reform agenda should be properly aligned and balanced between the national mission and security agencies’ ‘development agendas’. In other words, a close alignment between national missions and proper utilization of resources must be maintained. The emphasis on democratic accountability, rule of law and internationally-accepted human rights standards must be incorporated in domestic laws and policies. The government must come forward with forward-looking, long-term and lasting programs to secure the security gaps and vulnerabilities rather than renovating short-term, top-dressing programs. I personally believe that academic education on security issues is the most effective and long-lasting strategy to consolidate peace in post-conflict societies. (Writer is a former AIG of Nepal Police.)   Article published in Republica, 20 Aug, 2009