The prevalence of authoritarian governance systems across the world means that liberal democracies at times need to work with security institutions in those systems to achieve their own foreign and security policy objectives.
However, providing external security support in these settings is fraught with risks. While the potential benefits of supporting authoritarian security institutions often seem clear, corresponding risks need to be better mapped, understood and managed to the extent possible if benefits are to materialise. Based on the nature and types of authoritarianism, types of security configurations and institutions under authoritarian conditions, different modalities of programmatic engagement and types of external security support, I distinguish five levels of risk in this report that can help in taking decisions on whether responsible engagement with security organisations operating under authoritarian conditions is possible.
Two of these five levels represent strategic risks that essentially have to be (politically) accepted in the knowledge that they are likely to occur at some point. A further three levels represent operational risks that can be managed to a reasonable degree. However, much depends on the creativity, political savviness and capabilities of the external actor (or actors) that funds, scopes, designs and implements the intended security support.
- Level 1 strategic risks result from the nature of authoritarianism and include irrelevance, failure, reputational damage and perhaps even liability.
- Level 2 strategic risks result from the organisation of security under authoritarian governance conditions. The key risk issues here are the level of consolidation of the means of coercion and which security institution is critical to regime survival.
- Level 3 operational risks result from the quality of design of external security support programmes, which can be gauged by ten major indicators. The major risk is faulty design.
- Level 4 operational risks result from the type of external security support that is considered. More lethal and capability-only oriented types of security support logically carry greater risks.
- Level 5 operational risks result from the political sensitivity of the security topic or theme on which external support intends to work. Greater sensitivity means greater risk.
The report operationalises these different levels of risk to external support for security organisations operating under authoritarian conditions in the form of a quick scan tool and an in-depth risk analysis tool. These tools generate a risk profile for an intended intervention that can be compared and contrasted with anticipated benefits so that an evidence-based decision can be taken as to whether responsible engagement is possible.
About the Author
Erwin van Veen is a senior research fellow at Clingendael’s Conflict Research Unit (CRU).