Gill, Peter. "The Implications of Intelligence Practice Within and Beyond the State: An Analytical Model." Journal of Regional Security 8:2 (2013): 93-114. (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Implications of Intelligence Practice Within and Beyond the State: An Analytical Model
Journal of Regional Security, 2014
The study of the democratisation of intelligence in former authoritarian regimes and, more broadly, the relationship between intelligence and democracy, has hitherto concentrated on state intelligence services. The article challenges the utility of this state-centric model and considers the significance of corporate and para-state sectors of intelligence including their multiple interactions with states. 'Securitism' is developed as a model of these interactions which can be used in the analysis of contemporary intelligence governance and the profound challenges posed to the possibility of democratic control and oversight.
Lessons from the Post-Totalitarian Transformation of Intelligence Services
Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 2021
The reform of intelligence and state security services in the 'new' democracies that emerged since the end of the Cold War has remained under-documented and under-analyzed for a long time. This is especially true for smaller countries. Whereas this fact certainly can be explained with the sensitive nature of the business, the lack of data resulted in important lacunae for understanding these services, and obviously also for lessons to be drawn from the transformation processes. This special issue of Connections intends to fill some of the gaps. The editors are delighted to present studies on transformation processes in the structures, legislation, management, and oversight of intelligence and state security services in Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, the South African Republic, and Ukraine. 1 Various contributors felt encouraged to share data and analysis on ongoing processes of intelligence reform and the evolution of surveillance. Whereas the security of states and alliances remains the main challenge for the established services in democratic states, surveillance technologies have been developed and deployed for business and private use. The dimensions and importance of such commercial surveillance programs do not seem to be sufficiently understood, and therefore remain unrestrained by national legislation and governmental oversight. This collection also presents forward-looking analysis on possible consequences and governance challenges of pandemic surveillance and "surveillance capitalism."
Intelligence reform in new democracies: factors supporting or arresting progress
Democratization, 2011
This article examines an important (and most problematic) component of the democratic civil-military relations (CMR) concept (understood in terms of democratic control, effectiveness, and efficiency of the armed forces, police forces, and intelligence agencies). It focuses (1) on the democratization of intelligence, that is finding a proper balance between intelligence effectiveness and transparency, and on what particular factors support or arrest progress in the democratization of intelligence. The article provides supporting examples from Brazil and Romania, two developing democracies that have been undergoing major reforms of their intelligence systems for almost 20 years, in terms of both transparency and effectiveness. be analysed in terms of the CMR trinity for several reasons: in most of the newer democracies, intelligence was a monopoly of the military, and trying to reform it leads to familiar issues in the CMR literature on transitions and the dismantling of lingering military prerogatives; 1 in some established democracies (including the USA and France) the military still plays a predominant role in intelligence; 2 in other countries, while most attention is given by civil societies actors to reforms leading to new, civilian organizations, military intelligence often remains central to the whole intelligence system, intact, and commonly overlooked; and, both intelligence and the armed forces share the same ultimate goal, to safeguard national security. It must be acknowledged up front that only two-thirds of our CMR framework can fruitfully be applied to matters of intelligence due to secrecy; while both democratic civilian control and effectiveness can be determined (although with regard to effectiveness, the data are much more available in older democracies than newer ones, and even there, limited due to inherent secrecy surrounding intelligence work), the same cannot be said of efficiency, which is almost impossible to quantify as budgets are most often secret and intelligence is most successful when nothing is publicly heard about it.
The Role and Purpose of Intelligence in a Democracy
2019
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society.-John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1 At the writing of this volume in early 2019, there are 146 democracies around the world-out of 195 states. 2 These countries have held free and fair elections, instituted market economies, and fostered the creation of civil societies. Some have endeavored to overhaul their intelligence agencies, 3 converting repressive state security systems into democratic intelligence communities. Even the most successful democracies face a conundrum in regard to the intelligence function, however: whereas democracy calls for political neutrality, transparency, and accountability, effective intelligence agencies must operate in secrecy. Democratic Systems In general, the literature on democracy divides democratic systems into two ideal types: electoral democracies, which are characterized by free and fair elections, and liberal democracies, which involve free and fair elections as well as the protection of individual, civil, and political rights and freedoms of the citizenry. 4 Moving from electoral to liberal democracies equates to achieving democratic consolidation,
Classifying Political Regime Types and Intelligence Practices: A Conceptualised Reconstruction
This paper 2 aims to address the practises of intelligence within different political regime types. The main focus is on the notion that an intelligence service exists because of and as a tool of a political regime. " It is generally accepted, when looking at intelligence from a comparative perspective, that the nature of a country's intelligence system to a great extent reflects the nature of that society – its traditions, history, culture, thinking and political system. " 3 Furthermore, within this notion of intelligence as a key and secret component of a state, it can either be involved in less or more democratic practises. Therefore, this paper firstly examines current political regime types in order to be able to conceptualise a relevant typology in terms of either democratic, non-democratic or hybrid practices. n addition and light of recent phenomena within regime transitions towards democracy, whereby some countries got stuck in the " grey zone " and were not able to reach the end goal of consolidation, the second aim of this paper is to examine, identify and explore democratic, non-democratic and hybrid intelligence practices within the different regime types as to provide a typology for their respective intelligence practices. This paper in addition, aims to provide an analytical tool that enables the measurement both intelligence practices as well as political regime types.
All azimuth Vol.3, No.2, 2014
The reform or ‘democratization’ of intelligence has been studied in many countries essentially as a process of transition from authoritarian or ‘counterintelligence’ states to liberal democratic regimes in which security and intelligence agencies are subject to (more or less) democratic control and oversight.1 These studies have contributed to the growth in comparative studies of intelligence but have often ignored some key issues, including the conditions for the very existence of ‘state’ intelligence, the continuing significance of parallel non-state intelligence entities and the involvement of an increasing number of corporate actors in intelligence activities. This article examines intelligence as it works within and between different ‘sectors’ and the implications for democratization