Counties should invest in soft-security measures

On May 19, 2015, in the wake of the terrorist attack on Garissa University College and a deadly wave of killings and cattle rustling in the North Rift, governors demanded a greater role in security to combat terrorism and cattle-rustling.

Renewed pressure to devolve security has thrust Africa’s democracies into new uncharted waters and raised fundamental questions about the balance of power between national governments and devolved authorities.

In the age of terrorism and asymmetric security threats, devolving security management is inescapable. Beyond naked power, county chiefs must have a clear grasp of the complex security threats and laws needed to underpin the scope and frameworks of collaboration with national governments.

Coming hot on the heels of the contentious Pesa Mashinani campaign to get the government to devolve no less than 45 per cent of resources to the counties, the push by governors for a greater role in security is fostering a creeping fear that the county is morphing into the proverbial ogre that devoured its own mother.

The county bosses are citing the assumed laxity of security personnel to demand a role in security management, which is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution.

They are calling for “collaborative methodologies” that enables them to control security affairs in their counties while “the President retains the last command.”

They have a worth ally in the Senate where chairman of the Security Committee Yusuf Haji has urged the national government to delegate some of the security responsibilities to the governors because “they had more influence on the ground.”

The government has come out fighting. “Security will not be devolved,” declared the Devolution Cabinet Secretary Anne Waiguru. Nairobi is wary that placing the governors on top of the county security architecture with command and control functions will “create two or more lines of command and create confusion rather than tackle insecurity.”

It will also unduly politicise security especially in regions like North Rift and North Eastern where regional leaders are evidently mired in commercialised cattle rustling, clan and ethnic conflicts.

Be that as it may, the debate on devolution and security is opening new frontiers of policy and scholarship. Hitherto, attention was on the necessary balancing of security and liberty on a horizontal axis at the national level. Now, focus is shifting to the sharing of security responsibilities on a vertical axis between devolved units and the national government.

Globally, this power struggle between national and local structures harkens back to the argument between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in American history – which inspired our Constitution – over the role, power and authority of state versus federal governments. Locally, this struggle has just started and is likely to continue for generations to come.

Despite the vexed debate, that the county has a role to play in security management is indisputable. Today, national security covers an ever widening spectrum of areas and issues including: intelligence, law enforcement, conflict management, counter-terrorism, emergency/disaster management, public health, cyber-security, critical communications and infrastructure protection. The critical point is to chart out the role of counties in supporting this agenda.

NAKED POWER

Arguably, the hard-nosed push by governors for enhanced role in security is more about naked power than a clear understanding of the role of counties in confronting the mortal threat posed by extremist violence, terrorism and radicalisation and complicated by internal threats.

The crusade by county bosses to play a greater role in security must, surely, be soared by a higher moral ideal than a raw quest to “inspect a guard of honour.” It must come into terms with the reality that Kenya is a unitary state and counties are designed as ‘developmental units’ for service delivery to communities.

Defining this role calls for a clear delineation of two concepts of security.
One is “Hard-Security” based on the traditional state-centric view of security as defence and concerned with the mechanics of command and control of security forces as instruments of security.

Two is the “Soft Security” anchored on the more inclusive idea of human security and concerned with ensuring peace and stability using largely non-military, quiet and unobtrusive instruments such as social security systems, “moral networks”, conflict management systems, peace processes as well as infrastructure and technologies aimed at protecting and stabilising communities.

Owing to its service delivery mandate, the county’s role in security is by and large defined by the imperatives of “soft security.” Ensuring public safety is a critical and inextricable part of service delivery.

As such, a critical role of counties in national security is public safety, including the protection of the infrastructure of service delivery such schools, universities, health institutions, electricity, water, chemicals, agriculture and banking from both internal and external security threats.

Additionally, governors should invest in the technologies of ‘soft security’ to secure their communities and influence the national security agenda. Because local actors are likely to know suspected terrorists and funders of cattle rustling and inciters of conflicts, “soft security” measures become critical in conflict resolution.

Moving forward, Article 189 (2) of the Constitution provides for interaction of the two levels of government to work together in the performance of functions and to set up joint committees and joint authorities such as the County Policing Authority.

It is the perfect lynchpin for a binding security partnership framework between counties and the national government.

Prof Kagwanja is the chief executive of Africa Policy Institute and former government adviser