By: Dr. Saifuddin Zaman Al-Daraji - Researcher on Foreign Policy and International Security
"In today's national security environment, corruption in the security system is no longer just an administrative glitch or a limited financial overreach, but has become one of the most serious threats the state can face from within." The security institutions, with their various formations and responsibilities, represent the first line of defense for the sovereignty of the State and the protection of public order and societal stability. When corruption infiltrates these institutions, it not only undermines performance, but also touches the whole essence of the state and the ability to enforce the law, protect citizens and manage threats efficiently and responsibly.
Corruption is more serious when combined with the primacy of loyalty over competence. In this case, the problem is not limited to bribery, waste or mismanagement of resources and capabilities, but turns into deep-rooted corruption that affects the structure of the state itself. Assigning sensitive security positions to figures who do not have the experience, strategic and analytical thinking, or leadership ability, which is chosen on the basis of loyalty, proximity to centers of influence, or narrow affiliation, leads to a decline in professionalism, the exclusion of competencies, the weakening of chains of command and control, and the distortion of security or intelligence decision.
And thus creates a state of despair in an environment that repels experiences, not interested in development and providing the best, professional elements that have built their experience through years of specialized study, and field, administrative or planning work find themselves marginalized in front of people who have more influence than they have knowledge. Over time, this leads to poor morale within the organization, declining discipline, and a loss of trust between the leadership and executive levels. This leads to the transformation of the security function from a national responsibility to a fortune, and from a professional duty to a position of influence.
Corruption in the security system not only weakens the institution from within, but also directly affects citizens' relationship with the state. When citizens feel that the institution is not operating according to the standard of justice and professionalism, their confidence in the state's ability to protect them is diminished. This trust is not only a matter of morale, it is an essential element of national security. "Community cooperation, risk communication, respect for the law, and a sense of belonging to the state all depend on citizens' trust in security institutions."
Hence, the fight against security corruption is not only a defense of public money, but a defense of the state's legitimacy, prestige, and standing in the eyes of its citizens.
At the institutional level, corruption leads to a weakening of security readiness through several paths. It can affect contracts and equipment, causing resources not to reach their intended recipients or to be used in the right place. It may affect human resource management, and in training and qualification processes, making them formal or unrelated to actual needs. This directly affects the mechanisms for evaluating performance and delivering the product, and thus the state pays a significant security, political, and institutional cost.
At the international level, the spread of corruption in its various tools, meanings and methods, leads to undermining the ability of the state to gain the trust of international partners, as countries - especially those with advanced security and intelligence systems, and advanced institutional oversight - have their sensors through which they can evaluate their strategic partnerships and the reliability of bilateral and multilateral cooperation to achieve national interests and support ways to achieve their goals and the policies of their governments to ensure a safe and stable international environment capable of promoting their growth, prosperity and the well-being of their peoples.
International experiences within this framework abound with important examples, mainly focused on the fact that the reform of the security and intelligence systems is not achieved by increasing powers alone, but by rebuilding governance, oversight, efficiency standards, and controlling the relationship between security, law, and politics. In Canada, post-problematic reviews of the work of the Federal Police Security Service have led to the creation of an independent civilian security and intelligence service, operating within a more visible legal and oversight framework. "The crux of the reform was to separate some security functions, strengthen accountability, and prevent overlapping of powers."
In the United States, the attacks of September 11, 2001, marked a major turning point in the structure of the security and intelligence system. The reviews showed that the problem was not only the lack of information, but also the lack of coordination between the agencies, especially between the CIA and the FBI, the fragmentation of powers and the inability of institutions to link indicators to each other in a timely manner. The reform therefore came through the establishment of the post of Director of National Intelligence ODNI, the establishment of a national center for combating terrorism, and the strengthening of information-sharing mechanisms between institutions. The most important lesson here is that institutional efficiency is achieved not only by the possession of information, but by the ability of the state to coordinate, analyze and transform it into an effective decision.
In the United Kingdom, reform has tended to strengthen legal and parliamentary oversight of the work of the security and intelligence services, and to enhance cooperation and coordination between the internal intelligence services MI5 and the external intelligence service MI6, which was achieved by the formation of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), in order to achieve a balance between national security requirements, coordination of intelligence efforts, and the protection of civil rights and the rule of law. The role of the Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has also been developed, and oversight of policy, administration, spending and some operational aspects has been expanded. And this experience shows that censorship is not the opposite of the strength of the security services, but can be a source to enhance their legitimacy and raise the confidence of citizens.
In South Africa, reviews of the functioning of the State Security Service provided an important example of the seriousness of politicization and loyalties within sensitive security institutions. The audits recommended rebuilding governance, strengthening oversight, separating professional work from political considerations, and reorienting the institution toward serving the constitution and the state rather than serving the narrow calculations of the powerful. This experience has confirmed that any security apparatus that loses its professional compass may turn from a tool to protect the state to a source of confusion within it, and that the remedy is not only to change names, but to reform the institutional culture, legal rules and accountability mechanisms.
These examples reveal that reforming the security system requires an integrated approach. It is not enough to change leadership if the rules that produce the flaw remain the same. It is not enough to raise the motto of integrity if sensitive positions remain subject to loyalties. It is not enough to strengthen resources if disbursement, contracting and evaluation mechanisms remain weak. Genuine reform starts with reconsidering the standard of efficiency, linking responsibility to accountability, protecting the security establishment from politicization, and building an internal culture that regards integrity as part of security readiness rather than just a general moral value.
The fight against corruption in the security system must include reviewing recruitment and promotion systems, auditing and automating contracts and procurement, controlling supply chains, developing accurate databases of human resources, enhancing internal inspection, a culture of institutional evaluation, introducing secure artificial intelligence tools, and activating legal and administrative oversight in a way that does not harm the confidentiality of security and intelligence work and its professional requirements. Smart oversight does not disrupt the institution, but rather protects it from perversion, hacking, and mismanagement. Taking into account the provision of appropriate technical and financial support to keep pace with the risks and threats that have become significantly developed with their methods and tools.
There should also be a continuous review of sensitive security positions that must be linked to a clear career path based on experience, integrity, competence, career history, and leadership ability. "The security official manages part of the state's security, reputation, and community trust, so the mistake in choosing him does not remain an administrative error, but may turn into a strategic defect that reflects on the decision-making, readiness, and prestige of the state."
National security is not based on hard, soft, or even smart power alone. It is also based on trust, institutionalization, justice, efficiency, and keeping pace with the wheel of development in thinking and processing.
"In conclusion, it should be emphasized that a country with many security agencies but lacking integrity and professionalism may appear strong from the outside, but vulnerable from the inside." "A state that fortifies its security institutions with law, efficiency, accountability, and sophistication has a greater capacity to confront crises, protect citizens, and build more trusting relationships with its international partners."
comments