Civil Elements in National Security Decision-Making
- Written By: Efraim Chalamish
- Publication Date:
- Number Of Pages: 56 Pages
Defense strategy is the cornerstone of any nation‘s foreign and national security policy. Policymakers comprise a myriad of types of leaders including presidents, prime ministers, heads of key governmental departments, generals and other highranking military officials. Defense strategy discussions that were traditionally held in exclusive forums and were cloaked in secrecy are increasingly being held in transparent and more inclusive forums today. As such, these discussions address broader concerns with a greater variety of players. This phenomenon of the expanding security forums and apparatus is neither accidental nor coincidental. Instead, it is a derivative of responses to the changing threats in the national security world. Many countries have recently reformed, or at least reconsidered, their defense policies, motivated by the impact of globalization, the prevalence of non-state actors in conflicts both abroad and at home, the Internet revolution, the threat of cyber attacks, the globalization of financial markets, and increased exchange of goods, services, and people, as well as the overall strain of the recent global economic crisis.
Defense strategy is the cornerstone of any nation‘s foreign and national security policy. Policymakers comprise a myriad of types of leaders including presidents, prime ministers, heads of key governmental departments, generals and other highranking military officials. Defense strategy discussions that were traditionally held in exclusive forums and were cloaked in secrecy are increasingly being held in transparent and more inclusive forums today. As such, these discussions address broader concerns with a greater variety of players. This phenomenon of the expanding security forums and apparatus is neither accidental nor coincidental. Instead, it is a derivative of responses to the changing threats in the national security world. Many countries have recently reformed, or at least reconsidered, their defense policies, motivated by the impact of globalization, the prevalence of non-state actors in conflicts both abroad and at home, the Internet revolution, the threat of cyber attacks, the globalization of financial markets, and increased exchange of goods, services, and people, as well as the overall strain of the recent global economic crisis.
Not only are the threats ever-increasing, but groups seeking to influence defense policy are increasing. A proliferation of think tanks and NGOs worldwide has led to an increase of those who are extremely vocal about defense policy concerns. They are constantly seeking ways and places to share their knowledge and networks, in order to influence decision-makers. Although there is evidence suggesting that think tanks and experts are influential when it comes to foreign policy, their influence on defense decisions is poorly regulated and ill-understood.
Instead of incorporating these outside influences into the official decisionmaking processes, they frequently have been involved with the work of a national security council–type institution in order to ensure a more inclusive defense srategy debate. These councils, which are a relatively new phenomenon, bring top military officials into conversation with various arms of the executive branch on matters of national security. While all of these councils continue to rely on the political and military elite and are only advisory in nature, their experience provides an impetus for considering the issues of defense and security in a more interdisciplinary manner.
Finding it insufficient to deal separately with external and internal state security, and finding it necessary to address the simultaneous promise and threat of globalization, many states have made adjustments. Some have streamlined their security apparatus, encouraged inter-departmental cooperation and coordination, and have included commercial and other civil elements in their decision-making process.
Hence, as presented in this paper, both the integration of external groups that bring these non-military factors into the national security decision-making process and building institutional mechanisms that empower non-military factors within existing institutions can democratize national security policymaking and thereby make it more effective. Any reference, then, to civil elements in national security decision-making includes both civil groups or entities, such as academia or media, and institutional bodies, such as a parliament. As I show in a separate part of this study, these adjustments have been implemented in several democratic countries, along with authorizing a parliamentary role in the defense decision-making process. While in most countries, national security strategy and implementation are driven by the executive branch or the presidency, our studies show that some countries are currently adopting reforms that will empower their parliaments and authorize the legislators to participate in, or approve, certain defense decisions. Parliamentary participation improves transparency and accountability, increases diversity of opinions and facilitates weighing other considerations such as foreign policy and economics, affording them much needed attention. Despite these and other recent and widespread reforms in the area of defense policy and national security, non-governmental and non-military figures and factors are still noticeably absent from the institutionalized decision making process.6 In a separate part of this study discussing four key democratic and military powers (France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States) we will demonstrate the overwhelming influence that the executive branch and the military often wield in defense policy and decisions, and will discuss a recent initiative undertaken by these countries to change it, as appropriate under the circumstances. Israel and many other democracies share similar characteristics as well as new impetuses for adjustments or reforms.
It is important to understand the potential ramifications of a narrow approach to defense strategy. While supporters of an interdisciplinary approach to defense strategy initially view strong leadership and basic inter-governmental cooperation as necessary, an historical survey of military mishaps undertaken recently reveals gaping holes in the current decision-making process and a potential for disastrous consequences.
Decisions made by overworked and sometimes ill-informed government executives, under extremely tight time constraints, can lead to policies that are, although well intentioned, shortsighted and narrow in scope. Neglecting to develop and carry out a strategy to address not only the immediate situation, but also possible long-term consequences of a military operation, can lead to unnecessary deaths, increased difficulty in future military endeavors, damage to international business interests, and irreparable harm to foreign relations. By incorporating the knowledge, opinions and advice of members of the diplomatic community, experts/academics, business representatives, NGOs, and media representatives into the decision-making process in a systematic and consistent way, states can hope to avoid serious pitfalls. Clearly, it
must be done in a sensitive way to avoid imposing unreasonable constraints on the military and its effective management.
Making the process more inclusive is crucial in order to allay many of the practical concerns associated with defense policy. More importantly, it is imperative for the establishment of a democratically responsible defense policy. Thus, any constitutional checks and balances‘ approach will be more effective if other branches of government are able to fully carry out their functions by working with the various constituents and integrating their critical view into the policy-making process.