Sofia Tzamarelou: Intelligence in Democratic Transitions
Intelligence in Democratic Transitions by Sofia Tzamarelou presents a new comparative analysis of Portugal, Greece, and Spain as understudied cases of intelligence democratization. Delve into our Q&A session with the author to learn more about her selection process for these countries; the analytical frameworks she employs in her study; and more.
Can you briefly explain the role of intelligence services in the transition from authoritarian regimes to democracy?
During each period of democratic transition, all state institutions undergo transformations. Therefore, intelligence services, as integral state entities, must undergo similar adjustments. The key question to ask here is: When transitioning from an authoritarian regime to democratic rule, what are the key reforms that should be undertaken to ensure a democratic intelligence system? To grasp the nuances of this transition, it is imperative to look into control and oversight mechanisms for intelligence services, recruitment and targeting procedures, and the implementation of lustration for purging purposes. Additionally, the influence of civil society in shaping intelligence services holds significant relevance. I examine and analyze all these deeper factors in my book.
Why did you choose to study Portugal, Greece, and Spain and why have these countries been overlooked in the intelligence literature?
The inspiration for this book took root approximately a decade ago during my master's degree in intelligence studies in the United Kingdom. As a student, I swiftly recognized the prevalent focus on intelligence affairs in the UK, United States, and Soviet Union, both historically and from an intelligence standpoint. With a Greek background and exposure to historical studies beyond the UK, I aimed to provide a fresh perspective that could enrich the intelligence discourse beyond the Anglosphere. These three countries are overlooked in comparative intelligence studies despite their shared historical contexts. Prior examinations of these cases have typically occurred in isolation, lacking a systematic application of Security Sector Reform (SSR) to gauge levels of intelligence democratization. This book therefore pioneers a systematic comparative analysis of understudied case studies beyond the Anglosphere, shedding light on intelligence democratization through SSR indicators.
Your book uses comparative analysis and security sector reform (SSR) indicators as its method and policy framework. Why did you choose these and how do they deepen your analysis?
The comparative analysis stands as one of the most potent methodological tools at our disposal. Isolating a case study without comparative context risks trapping us in uncertainty regarding its uniqueness and limits our ability to draw generalized hypotheses and conclusions. A central question addressed in this book is: Why did the intelligence services of Portugal, Greece, and Spain exhibit varying outcomes in intelligence democratization despite transitioning to democracy around the same time? Integrating the comparative method with the Security Sector Reform (SSR) policy framework presents a novel approach, particularly considering historical criticism over SSR for its perceived inapplicability to intelligence. My work demonstrates the efficacy of employing SSR to gauge levels of intelligence democratization and aims to inspire further utilization of this methodology in the intelligence discipline.
SSR prioritizes transparency, accountability, and effectiveness, all of which are intertwined with key SSR indicators like lustration, control and oversight mechanisms, recruitment practices, targeting strategies, and civil society engagement. To achieve democratic oversight, facilitated by both formal and informal means with civil society involvement, a process of lustration becomes imperative. This process lays the groundwork for transparency, complemented by rigorous recruitment protocols. Fair recruitment enhances effectiveness by ensuring skilled personnel are equipped to address genuine threats. Moreover, control and oversight, linked to transparency and accountability, necessitate strategic targeting to align intelligence efforts with safeguarding citizens rather than merely serving regime interests. This approach strengthens transparency, accountability, and effectiveness within a democratic framework.
What do you identify as the role of critical junctures in the democratization process?
Critical junctures operate as shocks, endogenous or exogenous, that help facilitate reform. Portugal was faced with its own critical juncture — the Carnation Revolution in 1974. Portugal experienced a drive to reform from within with the armed forces and civil society operating as catalysts for change. Key events that followed the fall of the dictatorship in each state, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and the Madrid bombings in 2004, also acted as levers that pushed for intelligence reform. In the book, I explore how these critical junctures enabled reform and what are the differences between the countries in question when it came to these events.
Do you hope that your book will serve as a model for further comparative work in intelligence?
Certainly! The book's overarching goal is to encourage further exploration, particularly focusing on understudied intelligence (democratization) cases beyond the Anglosphere. Using SSR as the way to measure intelligence democratization levels coupled with comparative methods is an innovative methodology that I am eager to see others using in future research endeavors.