|
Justice and security is a fundamental public good and service, no different from access to potable water, basic healthcare, and primary education. Its distribution and delivery ought to be accountable, affordable, accessible, and appropriate to and for all citizens and residents of a country. The post-colonial fragile state, unfortunately, is, often, unable and/or unwilling to provide an adequate level or equitable distribution of justice and security, as well as other public goods and services, to its populace. This situation does not arise only from conflict, the violence and injustice associated with conflict, and the usual increase in criminality that occurs after the cessation of conflict. For the state, the challenge runs much deeper, as on an annual basis, non-conflict violence and criminality far exceeds that caused by civil strife. Conceptually, the issue is not who delivers the public goods and services, as there are a number of ways that justice and security, as public goods, can be provided. Rather the obligation of any state is to ensure that its distribution and delivery meet certain standards and principles - accountability, affordability, accessibility, and appropriateness.
There are three basic means by which justice and security as a public good and service can be provided, none of which are mutually exclusive and most often they exist in various complex combinations:
-
The state delivers the public good and service through its institutions and agencies;
-
The state ‘contracts out’ delivery to service providers;
-
Non-state networks provide service either ‘in law’ or ‘in practice'.
Because of the political sensitivity of justice and security, not to mention its oft-times tenuous legitimacy, the post-colonial fragile state may be reluctant and/or averse to permit or recognise other actors’ participation in its distribution and delivery, whether it be ‘contracted out’ or provided by a non-state actor. It is the balance and relationships between and among these methods of distribution and delivery of justice and security in the post-colonial fragile state, and how donors can support its provision, which is one of the foci of this report. It should be noted, however, that the role of donors as outsiders may pose political challenges to the post-colonial fragile state, particularly with regard to its perceptions of its sovereignity.
At the same time, however, because the fragile state is unable to provide an adequate level or equitable distribution of public goods and services, the delivery of security has been, in many instances, privatized. There are three basic means by which security, as a private good and service, can be provided, none of which are mutually exclusive and most often they exist in various complex combinations:
-
State institutions and agencies, as the organization and/or the individuals within the organization, charge fees for their services.
-
Private security companies offer security as a product/commodity.
-
Criminal groups, acting outside of the law, whether with or without local support, deliver security as part of their criminal enterprise.
The distinction between justice and security as a public versus a private good and service is a crucial one. In the former instance it is a good and service intended to be available to all, for the benefit of all, and from which no one is excluded. In the latter case, it is either a product/commodity sold for the enrichment of the seller to be privately consumed by those who can afford it or a service provided after payment is demanded/extorted.
This difference between public and private goods and services is vital in the discussion of the multi-layered structure of the post-colonial fragile state, its institutions and agencies, and their relationships between and among the various types of justice and security service delivery. Without distinguishing between the two types of goods and services, it is difficult to comprehend:
-
The role and function of non-state/local justice and security networks;
-
The relationship between the state and private security providers;
-
The ability of the state to ‘contract out’ justice and security services that it may not itself provide.
To tackle these issues, this report is divided into four sections. The first briefly analyzes the post-colonial state, its nature and structural arrangements, so as to situate the role of non-state/local justice and security networks, not only for the delivery of justice and safety as a public good and service in the short- to intermediate-term, but as an integral component of statebuilding. Coming to terms with the structure and nature of the fragile state is also vital to comprehend how security has been privatized, which is the second section of this report. The third discusses how the post-colonial fragile state can and cannot effectively ‘contract out’ justice and security provision in the short- to intermediate-term. The final section offers four recommendations to the development community, by which it can support the post-colonial fragile state to strengthen the delivery of justice and security to all its citizens and residents.
|
