The objective of security sector reform has to take care of the threats to the security of the state and the safety of its citizens. These arise often from the situation within the state and military responses may not be suitable. This leads on to an analysis of the government. The second article talks in a wider, more theoretical and less action oriented tone. It says that "existing constitutional frameworks have been used to maintain status quo than promote change". This much is certainly true and it is true not only of the countries with a security problem, but also of even United States wherein recently a justice of the Supreme Court was appointed, though she had no experience of being a judge, but she was a friend of the Chief Executive of the country. There are and will always be haves and have-nots in every country, whether Soviet Russia exists or not. Anyway from this there is a carry over to weak rule of law, inadequate accountability, and external donors pressing reforms on weak governments without thinking of the results of the proposed change.

In the article from DFID the clear assumption is that all analysis of security situations ha

Now let us look at certain areas in the world which require solutions to security problems and one of them is South East Europe. The problems in this area consists first of historical legacies like ethnic divisions, inheritances of totalitarian and authoritarian governments. These inheritances do not stop development, but cause a lot of difficulties in implementing reforms, stop the fulfillment and often end up moving the reforms away from development of democratic processes. Some results of this are seen in the existence of weak governance and fragile civil society and also stop the reform of security situations. (Security Sector Reform in South East Europe)

The weakness of the society and the security is system is further demonstrated through weaknesses of the state in lack of co-operation among different states in the region, lack of cooperation between structures of the same government, weaknesses of state structures leading to non-implementation of security requirements, and lack of ability of civil servants to do their jobs. Even the civil society is weak here and does not help in the required reforms, and the only solution to this is the development of a set of intellectuals who will develop the entire societal government structure and carry out required reforms within the government. Another important problem is the existence of corruption and organized crime. The two harmful features of the society are inter-connected, as in all the cases where they exist together. This stops the security organizations from taking action against the criminals though they know about them. (Security Sector Reform in South East Europe) The experience in this practical case which is taking place now only reflects the practical realities of the theories that have been propounded, but do not lead us any closer to action for solving the difficulties.

It is always difficult to understand and appreciate the security situation within any government unless one experiences it first hand for some time.

The duty of the government is specified in the article from DFID to be "to manage national security accountability and to resolve differences before they develop into violent conflicts". (Understanding and supporting security sector reform) While this is no doubt true, all governments think that they are powerful enough to overcome all opposition and this is even truer in cases where there is no control on the government through a democratic opposition. The questions to which the answers are sought are however different and concentrate on the ability of the government to maintain security in a lawful and accountable manner; freedom of the country from paramilitary units, private armies, guerrilla forces and warlords; information, organization and resources with the government for implementing its defense and security policy; capability of the government in dealing with transnational and other organized crime; civil control over armed forces and security services; freedom of judiciary; confidence in the capacity of people in the state to maintain security; and action being taken to remedy problems that can be seen. (Understanding and supporting security sector reform)

While these areas have governments and societies that have come into e

Some common words found in the essay are:
Soviet Russia, East Europe, Framework UNDP, Security Sector, Palestinian Territories, Luther King, Effective Cross, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, security sector, Abraham Lincoln, security sector reform, sector reform, security sector governance, governance conceptual framework, framework undp, sector governance conceptual, conceptual framework, governance conceptual, conceptual framework undp, sector governance, inadequate accountability, accountability external, law inadequate, understanding supporting,
Approximate Word count = 2190
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)