edit in The Nation, Dec 12, 2022
Once again, reports suggest that there have been calls for setting up an internal security structure on the lines of the US Homeland Security Department. This was apparently discussed last week when the board of governors of the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) met in the federal capital. This is not the first time such ideas have been tabled, inspired by foreign institutions that are not grounded in the local realities and context.
Our bureaucratic mindset has resulted in new initiatives being proposed, without considering the local context, and the need and inherent financial and institutional limitations. There is limited interest in reforming and improving existing institutions to ensure that they fulfill their mandate. In fact, this trend of parallel structures also allows the authorities to shift the blame from one institution to the other as it becomes easy to blame the competency of the system.
Poor handling of NACTA has meant that even today the authority is still in the process of determining its exact role—coordinating among law-enforcement agencies or providing policy insights to the government. According to the Nacta Act, data collection and information processing and dissemination to the relevant authorities are its primary tasks. The law elaborates on the vital function of coordination among security agencies. It is essentially patterned after the UK’s National Security Secretariat, which coordinates security and intelligence issues across the government and produces assessments on national security issues. However, such a body cannot function in Pakistan because intelligence agencies remain reluctant to share information with a civilian body like NACTA.
NACTA should not have to demand an operational role to counter terrorism-related threats when provincial counterterrorism departments of police already exist and are performing well. Pakistan needs a federal body like NACTA which should ensure the implementation of the National Internal Security Policy and the National Action Plan (NAP).
The tragedy is that the government and NACTA’s bureaucracy and the interior ministry do not take internal security issues very seriously unless terrorism and extremism-related issues surface and people demand action. In this stop and start manner, the body becomes active, but once the critical stage is over, NACTA recedes into the background. It is important to note that the last meeting of the authority’s board of governors was held after a gap of two years. The body does need reforms, but realistic ones. NACTA can become effective if it focuses on its core coordination mandate and provides policy insights on internal threats.
https://www.nation.com.pk/12-Dec-2022/nacta-reform
