This chapter outlines the process of developing and implementing policy in the security sector. It discusses 7 key issues: 1) importance of human and institutional capacity, 2) policy communication and debate, 3) policy analysis, 4) factors influencing major policy reviews, 5) policy development, 6) implementation, and 7) oversight. It explains why policy is important for providing guidelines, accountability, and predictability. The politics of policy processes are also examined, emphasizing the importance of governance, transparency, human rights, and professional autonomy of security forces. The context of policy development during periods of change or stability is discussed.

1. CHAPTER 4
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION,
AIM
This chapter outlines the process of formulating and implementing policy. Section 4.1
explains why policy is important. Section 4.2 examines the political dimensions of the
policy process. Section 4.3 offers some observations on the context in which policies
are developed and implemented. Section 4.4 discusses the policy management
process and describes its application in the security sector. It focuses on seven key
issues: 1) the importance of human and institutional capacity; 2) policy communication,
dialogue, and debate; 3) policy analysis; 4) factors influencing the decision to conduct a
major policy review; 5) policy development; 6) policy implementation; and 7) oversight.
4.1 WHY POLICY IS IMPORTANT
Policy in any sector is important for four inter-related reasons:
 It provides a clear series of guidelines within which strategies can be framed and
activities can take place.
 It thus helps discipline government behaviour by minimizing ad hoc and costly
decision-making processes and striving for the optimal use of resources in pursuit of
specific objectives.
 It provides people with a series of normative and practical guidelines via which
government can be assessed and held accountable for its actions.
 It confers predictability on the activities of government.
4.2 THE POLITICS OF THE POLICY PROCESSES
The policy process is often equated with the formal institutional arrangements
that are its output – legislation, policy documents, improved organizational
management, and the like. In reality, the policy process is part of a complex political
process that reflects institutional relationships that are inherently political, subjective and
psychological. Where the security forces have become deeply embedded in the
political system and economy, simply writing new laws or undertaking narrow
institutional reforms will have only a limited effect on progress toward democratic civil
control of the security sector. It is therefore important to focus on changing the entire
environment within which the security sector operates.
56

2. African experience with reforming the security sector at the end of the 20th
century and beginning of the 21st century underscores the importance of improved
governance, greater transparency, respect for rules-based systems, and promotion and
protection of human rights. Several areas are particularly relevant in this regard:
 Addressing the constitutional dimensions of civil democratic control.
 Developing civilian expertise in security issues, among politicians, government civil
servants, and civil society.
 Developing participatory and collective methods of managing the security sector that
are consistent with African culture and participatory democracy.
 Creating opportunities for networking and dialogue between members of the security
forces and civilians.
 Agreeing the division of labour among the different security forces.
 Ensuring professional autonomy of the security forces (Box 4-1).
Any effort to enhance the policy process in the security sector in Africa must be
based on: 1) accountability to the people; 2) participation, facilitated by an accessible
process and a culture of inclusivity; 3) government [?] legitimacy; 4) transparency; 5)
efficiency; and 6) ownership. To this end, national policy processes must ensure that:
 The process itself is understood to be as important as the outcome of the process.
Box 4-1. Why Professional Autonomy of the Police Service Matters
“Political manipulation of the police subverts the rule of law and undermines the professionalism of
officers, deterring the best recruits and reducing police capacity to combat crime effectively…. The
South African police force was previously an intrinsic part of the state apparatus of repression, with
officers involved in widespread and systematic human rights violations.
“Now, other governments across the SADC region are using tactics resembling those of the
apartheid era, in politically misusing the police to suppress public meetings, demonstrations or
campaigning by opposition parties and government critics. In the majority of countries in the region,
police harass, disrupt or discourage the activities of opposition leaders, trade union officials, youth
activists, human rights monitors and journalists. This political misuse of the police violates
international human rights guarantees and standards for policing. Evidence of such misuse can be
seen in statements of political allegiance made by police officials and in reprisals against officers
who carry out their duties in a fair and impartial manner.
“Several international human rights standards oblige law enforcement officials to carry out their
duties fairly and impartially. …[I]nternational standards and treaties entitle everyone to the equal
protection of the law, without discrimination. [For example, the] UN International Code of Conduct
for Public Officials states that public officials have a duty to act in the public interest and that:
‘Therefore, the ultimate loyalty of public officials shall be to the public interests of their country as
expressed through the democratic institutions of government.’ The public interest lies in policing
being conducted fairly and impartially, without regard to political affiliation.”
Source: Amnesty International, Policing to protect human rights: A survey of police practice in
countries of the Southern African Development Community, 1997-2002, London, 2002, pp. 13-14.
See also International Code of Conduct for Public Officials (Article 1),
(www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/a51r059), adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 51/59 of
12 December 1996.
57

3.  The management and administration of the process is credible and respected.
 Conflicting aims and views are mediated in a manner that enriches the policy debate
and does not jeopardize its progress. This may necessitate conflict resolution and
consensus building among key stakeholders.
 To promote transparency, participation, and credibility, all relevant stakeholders
have access to necessary information.
 The process is open to the diverse views existing in society. Dissenting views are
valued as enriching the policy debate and as a means of ensuring that the opinions
of various sectors of society are represented.
 Ordinary people are empowered to make effective contributions to policy
development and implementation by giving them the necessary tools to participate.
 The entire process is accessible to ordinary citizens: physical proximity, the
languages used, the absence of jargon and overly sophisticated language, the
provision of relevant information on the aims and objectives of the process in a
timely manner.
 Priority is given to public education during policy development and implementation in
order to assist the public in understanding their rights and obligations. Efforts are
made to use appropriate media and other methods to reach out especially to the
disadvantaged and marginalized.
 The process is continuously reviewed and evaluated to confirm that operating
principles and minimum standards are adhered to.
 All actions violating the values enshrined in the output of the process should be
unequivocally rejected.
 Universally accepted rights must be reflected in all processes.
4.3 THE POLICY CONTEXT
Policy is developed and implemented in two different types of contexts: 1)
periods of significant change – either in economic and political systems or in the
relevant institution itself and 2) periods where systems are essentially stable. Both of
these situations have a different bearing on the possible outcomes of a policy process,
and it is important to consider the following factors when engaging in a process of
transformation:
 Nature of change. A decision to undertake major policy changes is more easily
made during a periods of significant change. In periods of relative system stability,
changes tend to be slower and more incremental. At the same time, it may be
easier to implement major changes under conditions of greater system stability.
 The stakes. During period of change, the political and institutional stakes are
high. In the security sector, failure to deal with the need for significant change has
led to many governments being overthrown. In times of system stability, the stakes
tend to appear moderate.
58

4.  Level of attention. Policy changes tend to draw less attention when they are
“chosen” during periods of system stability.
Responses to the introduction of a new policy also affect the context in which the
policy is developed and implemented. Two factors are especially important here:
 The costs of the policy to be implemented. If the costs of the policy are to be
borne by many people but the benefits concentrated in the hands of a few
(purchases of new cars and houses for ministers for instance), then the response of
the public is likely to be strongly negative. Costs that are borne by a small sector of
the population while the benefits of the policy are enjoyed by a larger number of
individuals (levies on business to support an economic development programme, for
instance) public reaction is likely to be muted. Because the security forces have the
capacity to disrupt the constitutional order, it is important to convince them they will
benefit professionally from the proposed changes, although some individuals may in
fact lose status or economic opportunities.
 The pace of policy implementation. Policies that are implemented rapidly and
affect many people evoke substantial public response (raising the price of bread
overnight for instance). However, policies that are gradually applied evoke much
less public response (standardization of driving licenses for example). Since
improving governance in the security sector is essentially a matter of institutional
and attitudinal transformation, it is likely to proceed relatively slowly. This will
provide breathing space for the security forces themselves to adjust; it may create
dissatisfaction among segments of the population if certain types of behavior, such
as human rights violations, are not altered rapidly.
Whenever a policy is going to be introduced or modified, it is critical to take into
account the sentiments of political society, civil society, the state and the public. As far
as possible one must identify the major role players required for the success of the
policy (both inside and outside the organization concerned), determine their attitudes
toward the proposed changes, and analyse their influence over the formulation and
implementation of the policy.22
4.4 THE POLICY MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Figure 4-1 illustrates a generic policy process and the discussion below
elaborates on key aspects of that process with reference to the security sector. While
the procedures described below will always apply to all stakeholders engaged in
managing a policy process, the process itself should not be managed mechanistically.
Nor should it be over-managed. Rather, there should be sufficient latitude to take into
22
The major actors in each portion of the security sector are discussed in Chapter 2. Additional
information on the roles they play in managing and overseeing the security sector will be provided in
chapters 5-8.
59