Over the last two decades the private security industry has acquired a character of its own

Nov 23, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The benefits to be derived from the enactment of private security legislation are multiple, while the factors which have led to the need for control of the industry are legitimate and varied.
Over the last two decades the private security industry has acquired a character of its own, and has grown in prominence. Several factors could be cited as being responsible for this metamorphosis: the first being the strenuous efforts by security companies, associations and professional bodies to improve the quality of service offered by the private security industry. Secondly, the context in which private security companies operated at specific periods in history.
The Extra Assembly of the Parliamentary Forum of Small Arms and Light Weapons, meeting in Panama City on October 28-29 2007, arrived at the following position:
1 – Recognises that the role of the state is to ensure that all citizens have equal right to security and access to the rule of law.
2 – Guaranteeing an effective system of democratic regulation and oversight of the private security sector.
3 – Acknowledges the negative impact that the private security sector can have, if unregulated, on security governance, fundamental human rights and the rule of law.
4 – Encourages the implementation and the enforcement of existing national laws governing the private security companies, and to close the legal loopholes in the control of private security sector activities.
5 – Supports the members of the Forum and their parliamentarian colleagues to formulate legislative and regulatory framework for the private security sector and develop effective mechanisms for control and oversight in order to better address the growth and expansion of the private security industry.
6 – Takes note of the fact that as yet there are no international convention or coordination mechanisms that in a comprehensive way captures and regulates all elements of the private security industry.
7 – Supports efforts on the regional level to pursue common standards on the regulation of the privatisation of security, which in turn can inform an international response to the issue.
8 – Urges donors that outsource SSR implementation to introduce mechanisms that ensure that private contractors are committed to professional methods and that they carry out their work in line with human rights, gender consideration, minority rights and humanitarian law.
9 – Recommends, as complimentary to legislation and regulation mechanisms, operational oversight structures are established or strengthened, such as developing the capacity of an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Committees, to improve control of the private security industry.
10 – Mandates the Board and the Secretariat to follow the development of the privatisation of security and take action in line with the adopted policy.
It continues: – That is not to say that the privatisation of security cannot make a valuable contribution by increasing the state’s and public institutions’ effectiveness in the realm of security. However, of central concern is the lack of legitimacy and accountability. The role of the state is, in this respect, to provide security, as a public good, for its citizens.
It should provide this right equally to all citizens and in a way that upholds human rights and democratic principles. Private security providers are responsible to their shareholders and company owners, and if not properly managed and regulated, they can present a risk to the development of a stable democratic state, or undermine established democratic and accountable security institutions.
Currently the private security industries in 57 countries of the world have more personnel than those in the employ of the state; among them India, the U.S, U.K, Israel, South Africa, Germany, Russia, the Philippines and Guyana. They sometimes have more personnel carrying arms than those employed by the state’s security apparatus, with a plethora of former state security personnel and a montage of military and other specialist security knowledge to their disposal. Many security industries turn over substantial amounts of cash annually and may have strong ties to the police, military, politicians and the underworld.
Owning to the large volume of money turned over by respective security industries annually, it being similar to the hospitality industry in some regard, offers members of the underworld a good opportunity to launder money by inflating perspective client lists and profits, while insulating themselves within the security service as a secondary benefit; a phenomenon that is especially peculiar to developing countries with weak governance systems. There seem a strong link between the private security industry and the under world in countries with high incidence of narcotic trafficking.
Private security companies are the repositories of vast amounts of “highly confidential information” which is critical to the security of National Key Points – those private and public entities which are critical to the smooth and continued functions of the country. In addition, they posses information on the corporate sector and the diplomat community in respective countries; if the conduct of private security companies are not properly regulated, then the security integrity of the above mentioned organisms could be violated which would have a destabilising effect on the state, and its domestic relations and foreign policy.
Since the state security apparatus assumes a subordinate role over the private security industry, it is often used as a place of employment for members of the armed services, many of whom often secure jobs there, for themselves, and associates long before they leave the armed services. Upon entering the private security industry many former armed services personnel superimpose their old habits on the private security industry, which include the granting of protection to criminals; while others seek to use the vast network of the private security industry to advance nefarious pursuits.
Contrary to popular thinking, operatives of the private security industry are a lot more involved in acts of human rights abuse than is officially acknowledged.
Notwithstanding the private security industry offers tremendous opportunity for public private collaboration under controlled circumstances. The policing of private space by members of the private security industry often prevents recalcitrant youths from becoming enmeshed by the criminal justice system, as the matter is often resolved within private confines. Owning to its ability to pay better wages in some industries, and its flexible management systems when compared to the states, the private security industry is able to support the state’s manpower base in times of short fall.
Many private security companies undertake highly specialised consultancies on behalf of their respective governments, and in some instances, are recommended by their governments to foreign governments seeking assistance.
While the research and other capabilities of many state security sectors have not kept pace with time, those in the private security industry have experienced tremendous development.
Today the private security industry leads the way in many provinces of physical security, to the extent of which they are the preferred choice of training for many departments of the state security sectors.
Clairmont Featherstone

---

---