From April 5 to 7, 2000, the PDGS organized its second international conference on civilian-military relations in Buenos Aires, Argentina¹. Hosted by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and Seguridad Estratégica Regional en el 2000, this conference - Governance, Security and Military Institutions in Democracies - brought together more than 45 experts from 18 countries throughout the Americas, and around the world to discuss the new challenges in civilian-military relations in this post-Cold War world. Seminar participants included academics, public officials, retired military officers, nongovernmental organization activists, legislators, representatives from ministries of defense and related agencies.

The political environment of the post-Cold War world is characterized by a search for equilibrium between what is meant by "democracy" and what is meant by "security" - a key point in the problem of civilian control of the armed forces, particularly in those countries undergoing transitions from military dictatorships and authoritarian regimes to democracy, and especially in newly independent or war torn nations. As new democracies move beyond landmark first or second elections, issues such as civil-military relations require attention to ensure continued democratic advances. Recognizing the unique demands required to address civil-military matters, NDI and four leading international nongovernmental organizations formed the Partnership for Democratic Governance and Security in 1998 to serve as a source of expertise and information on developing effective democratic, civilian control of the military. The Partnership is funded through a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Buenos Aires 2000 Seminar: Governance, Security and Military Institutions in Democracies

Objectives
Since its establishment in 1998, the PDGS has had to address new challenges to democratic governance and its relationship to security and political management of military institutions. The focus of the conference in Buenos Aires was identifying these new challenges from the regional perspective. In this context, the goal was to arrive at an understanding of how political systems have been responding to these new realities, which include, among others:

• The growing delegitimization of governments from developing regions largely due to their incapacity - for internal and external reasons - to improve the quality of life of the population, the exacerbation of situations of extreme poverty and the growth of unequal distribution. These issues should create warning signs to these elected governments so they become aware of the negative perception and the necessity of working to resolve these issues in order to establish a foundation for good governance.

• The recurrence of military coups d'état in countries that had been working towards the consolidation of democracy such as Pakistan and Côte d'Ivoire.

• The emergence of seemingly negative structural reforms based on a personalized and populist style of governance rather than institutionalized like those being developed today in Venezuela and Peru.

• The growing social tension that erupts into different levels of conflict between civil society and the different governmental mechanisms that dominate state violence (police, military and security forces).

• The increase in interstate and intrastate conflict in different regions of the world.

• The role of organized transnational crime, including narcotics trafficking.

The impact that these factors may have on the important process of building the capacity of civilians to oversee the armed forces was considered during the conference.

Seminar Agenda
Participants in the conference discussed the following topics:

• The impact of international and domestic security trends on democratic governance

• The role of political parties and the legislature in civilian democratic control of the armed forces

• Presentation of PDGS resource paper: The Military Role in Internal Defense and Security: Some Problems

• The state and military forces in transition and democratic consolidation

• The role of the media in the construction of civilian democratic control of the military and the media's perspective

• Presentation of PDGS resource paper: Intelligence in New Democracies: The Challenge of Civilian Control

Some of the key issues raised during the conference are the following:

• The importance of having legitimate systems of international security able to prevent and resolve conflicts; and the manner in which these systems affect the conditions of national security and the roles of the armed forces.

• The significant impact of other external factors in democratic consolidation, such as economic conditions, financial instability, transnational criminal activity, as well as corruption and its effects on the credibility of the political class.

• The regional and sub-regional security systems and their positive contribution to democratic governance.

• The main role of the political parties and parliaments/legislatures in the construction of civilian democratic control of the armed forces, and the deficiencies versus the potential of representative institutions in emerging democracies. The role of these institutions in the preparation of civilian capacity to manage issues of defense and security.

• The experiences of resolving tension by the construction of a system of political management of the military institutions, particularly in the case of ministries of defense.

• The role of interagency working groups in the establishment of effective political-military teams to facilitate appropriate participation of the armed forces in the political decision-making process.

• The role of interagency working groups in the establishment of effective political-military teams to facilitate appropriate participation of the armed forces in the political decision-making process.

• Legislative control of state violence.

• The issue of citizen security and state intelligence agencies.

Discussion Synopsis
The seminar served as a forum for discussing, debating and questioning the various issues that constitute the agenda of Governance, Security and Military Institutions in Democracies. In this context, one question to consider is whether the new global political arena is heading towards a new security agenda, or is merely muddled in the confusion generated during the post-Cold War years that masks the old, well-known security agenda that has been revitalized by other concerns.

Despite the cultural differences between regions such as Asia, Africa, Europe or the Americas, it is clear that each area faces common challenges in the 21st century. Moreover, these challenges will affect those countries still in the midst of transition more than those in the consolidation phase. The success of democratization is linked to the capacity to adapt to the new challenges that globalization/international cooperation brings. Evidence of the positive outcomes of globalization in democracies may lend strength to issues such as civilian control of the armed forces, intelligence and security forces, which count on resources, a solid network of state or social institutions, among other things.

Participants discussed some positive attributes of globalization/international cooperation that play a role in supporting democratic governance. Among these is the important impact that institutions like the UN and NATO has had on the democratization process in various countries such as Spain, Greece and Portugal, and the similar relationship that the OSCE and Partnership for Peace has had with countries like the Republic of Georgia. Another example of globalization that was revealed from the discussions is the effective international cooperation among the armed forces of different countries during peacekeeping missions.

At the same time, participants also discussed adverse effects of the role that globalization/international cooperation has played in inadvertently forcing the world to make decisions by consensus, which is thought to create a more stable, governable and democratic environment. In reality, participants commented that the effect of this type of cooperation on governance actually exaggerates exclusion, poverty, inequality, the lack of development in large parts of the earth, and the unevenness of scientific development between developed and undeveloped countries. Panelists also discussed globalization and its tendencies towards unifying political culture.

With regards to these aspects of globalization/international cooperation, several approaches were suggested and debated including the strengthening of the process of cooperation at international and regional levels, respect for different identities that is necessary for healthy cooperation, and the necessity of utilizing consensus as a conflict resolution mechanism.

The effects of international cooperation on the governance process at the country level were debated. Participants noted the necessity of studying these factors in a systemic manner in order to analyze them to determine how current mutations of individual factors are currently employed. One such factor is that states have not adjusted to the emergence of transnational powers. In this context, particular attention should be paid to the lack of definition of the missions of the armed forces regarding international security, and how such a lack of definition may affect its participation in the processes of domestic security. Participants also discussed the effect of international actors and their actions on the decision-making process to which the armed forces contribute.

Regionalization was another key issue discussed. Participants determined that it serves as both a source of and a solution to conflict. Although it is a common problem due to the emergence of new actors, it also provides a regional identity in which countries may frame their problems and seek remedies.

Participants noted the current lack of responsibility of state institutions (due to the frequent absence of public politics from the executive branch and corruption that reaches the legislatures) represents a danger for democratic governance. This danger is exacerbated by the crisis of political parties, which is particularly acute in Latin America today due to their lack of responsibility and representation, and of the dearth of active nongovernmental organizations and the failure of decision makers to take the active ones into account. Several concrete practices that can assist in achieving higher levels of responsibility were suggested and include the following:

• The necessity to respect the time needed for the difficult process of reconciliation in national societies emerging from periods of violence or military government.

• The importance of citizen responsibility for the lack of effective governance in many transition democracies, taking into account that unduly assertive or provocative initiatives may lead to new forms of military intervention in the political system.

• The necessity to elaborate transparent and reasonable mechanisms for the selection and promotion of the civilian and military leaders in emerging democracies.

• The clarification of the respective missions and functions of diverse security agencies, especially regarding external versus internal roles.

• The transparency in the decision-making processes with regards to defense policy, security and military budgets.

• The establishment of codes of conduct for agencies of defense, security and intelligence in relation to the country's own public.

It was noted that networks of citizen participation that are more complex, stable, and that collaborate with governments are needed. These networks must include particular actors such as academic institutions that generate and contain knowledge, nongovernmental organizations that focus on constructive democratic participation, and critics (in journalism, legislatures, for instance) that are both constant and consistent.

Participants agreed that the role of the media in the democratic process is valuable. The positive role that the media plays and has played in various transition processes was analyzed. What the media is fundamentally concerned about is guarding the memory of past human rights abuses that were viewed as an infringement during short-term authoritarian governments.

On the other hand, participants noted that the media should not function as a substitute for political parties. The participants observed that during many democratic transitions, the media has aspired to propose the political agenda. Participants also rejected that the media may be a good substitute of responsibility towards the society they inform. In all cases the media should be the reflection of a true and factual debate on key national issues. One of the challenges of this idea is how to further public debate on themes of security, defense and intelligence distinct from issues of scandal, and without resorting to propaganda or psychological operations.

The shortage of real knowledge among the media regarding matters such as defense, internal security, intelligence and regional security was noted. In addition, the necessity of joining to generate awareness in the editorial business about the importance of contact with professionals specialized in these security aspects was also discussed. Finally, it is necessary to promote in the media a responsible attitude so that it may be able to balance the information that they present that is critical of the past - with analysis of how the armed forces of a country have evolved institutionally towards a definitive subordination and professionalization.

Note

¹ The first took place from March 24 to 26, 1999 in Manila, the Philippines.