Parliamentary Oversight of the Security Sector: Lessons from Ghana

Parliamentary oversight of the security sector in Ghana is still a recent practice, havingonly come into being following the return to democratic rule in 1992. Prior to this, themilitary dominated the political scene for over 25 years. As the political terrain began tochange during the 1980s, the defense sector was the first to be targeted for reform bythe PNDC. The key objective of the reform exercise at the time was to prevent theoccurrence of further counter military rebellion in the country – not to introducedemocratic reforms in the entire security sector. Although this initiated transformation ofthe security sector, it did so in the context of a political system that remainedundemocratic. OECD SSR discourse emphasizes the need for national security policiesto be “human centered” rather than “state centered” – to meet the security needs ofcitizens, beyond just state integrity. In the Ghana case it is a matter of sequential priorityto first get the security sector “governable” by the state, then to think about how toensure that the needs of citizens are driving national security.Democratic oversight of the security sector in Ghana has since improved.Nonetheless, the legacy of military control remains: parliamentary authority remainsweak relative to the executive. To gradually alter this balance, parliament will need to beendowed with better institutional capacity to exercise its mandated oversight functionsand the resources to enable and sustain such changes. Moreover, aspects of existinglegislations enacted to regulate the activities and performance of key security sectorinstitutions limits, rather than enabling, the performance and effectiveness of oversightactors. Frequent shifts in personnel and excessive politicization of key oversight andaccountability institutions undermine an already weak human resource base. This roleneeds to be constructively complemented by the emergence of more security-consciouscivil society actors, including through networking, dialogue, and advocacy for wideningdemocratic space within the entire security sector.Externally, security cooperation with Ghana’s bilateral and multilateral partnershas been entered into in a spirit of regional cooperation for peace and security withoutany strategic national security interest or policy vision. It is envisaged that the outcomeof the security sector governance process in the country will bring forth a nationalsecurity strategy that will be driven mainly by qualitative parliamentary oversight.Currently, military engagements in either regional- or UN-mandated peacekeepingoperations are not adequately guided by parliamentary oversight. This gives excessiveleverage for executive manipulation of the security sector in such operations. One way toovercome this paradox is to allow parliamentary oversight to impact on the totality ofexecutive decisions in relation to military operations both for national defence purposesand peacekeeping missions abroad.The emerging Community Parliaments at both ECOWAS and the African Unionare processes that are expected to project parliamentary oversight of security sector tothe level of collective will, responsibility, and mobilization at the sub-regional andregional levels. Much of the operations of the standby force that is being constituted byECOWAS and AU are expected to be subjected to oversight by the respectivecommunity parliaments, but the community parliament at both levels are far from beingan elected oversight body. Hence, how can they be accountable to the people in whoseinterest they claim to represent within the current composition of the ECOWAS and AUcommunity parliaments?In conclusion, here is a four-level model for the effective and accountablefunctioning of the Ghana’s security sector: First, at the strategic level, parliament shouldhave complete oversight over security policy and objectives. Second, at the tacticallevel, all operational issues should be examined only with the involvement of keystakeholders and experts. Third, the identity of key personnel should be kept out of the28