Olga Korabliova,
expert at the NGO "Institute of Peace and Understanding" (IMiP)
Security is a prerequisite for comfortable living in one's city. Residents feel safe when several factors are provided: low crime, well-developed infrastructure including effective lighting and safe roads, an environmental situation adequate for a full life, and no threats to life and health. From a human-centered perspective, for residents to feel safe they must have a shared (community-wide) confidence that local institutions will protect them and provide effective assistance in case of danger. From a managerial perspective, for such public sentiment to form in a community it is necessary to ensure the effective functioning of all systems related to security.
Organizing management of the security system at the local level has become a new challenge for Ukrainian communities in recent years. Features of the country's socio-political context have altered how security is organized in communities. Two main factors currently affecting communities when implementing security programs are armed conflict and the process of decentralization. In this article we examine how these two objective factors modify security management on top of local security risks, and we propose tools for building local security in communities under such complex conditions.
Security in communities in this article is used to mean the set of infrastructure and measures that enable community residents to feel safe and comfortable regardless of their belonging to any particular social group.
Community in the text is used not in the general sense to denote any type of community—villages, towns—but rather in the legislative sense of the Law of Ukraine "On Voluntary Association of Territorial Communities": "An amalgamated territorial community whose administrative center is designated as a city is an urban territorial community; whose center is designated as an urban-type settlement is a settlement territorial community; whose center is designated as a village is a rural territorial community."i.e., amalgamated territorial communities (ATCs) and prospective ATCs.
Armed conflict and community security
The armed conflict in eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea continue to affect Ukrainian society and directly or indirectly influence the sense of security in the vast majority of the country's communities. Since the spring of 2014, following the outbreak of separatist movements in parts of Luhansk and Donetsk, armed aggression began in the East and the Crimean peninsula was seized, causing deep polarization within Ukraine's communities. Between 2014 and 2020, proceedings related to discrimination and terrorist acts in Crimea have been considered at the International Criminal Court, and the Joint Forces Operation (JFO) has continued in Donbas. It is currently impossible to predict the end of the armed conflict or the return of Crimea to state control. This negatively affects stability in areas adjacent to the line of contact and in the country's southern territories, leading to polarization among population groups and local conflicts during 2014–2020.
Crucial to the stability of the security situation in communities is that the armed actions and the annexation of Crimea had not only external-political causes but also internal structural factors:
- dependence of the political process on oligarchic interests;
- lack of stability in state institutions;
- an underdeveloped political culture and low trust in government.
Under these circumstances the state introduced a range of measures. At the start of the military response to violent actions, an anti-terrorist operation (ATO) was launched and later replaced by the Joint Forces Operation (JFO). Social measures were also initiated, such as programs for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and the process of decommunization as a response to Russian propaganda and to strengthen identity. Although these measures were aimed at strategic stabilization of the country's security situation, they produced complications at the local community level. It is important to consider the heterogeneity of Ukrainian society and the existence of a spectrum of Ukrainian identities.
Citizens' identities are multi‑component, formed by a combination of political views, ethnic identity, religion, economic well‑being, and social status. The vast majority of communities have felt the effects of the conflict. Many towns and villages received internally displaced people; demobilized ATO soldiers returned; relatives of fallen fighters also live there, and the economic consequences are significant. For example, the environmental situation has worsened because access to high‑quality anthracite coal was lost—the mines are located in non‑government-controlled areas—and heating is now done with brown coal, which has lower calorific value and produces more emissions. The process of decommunization and efforts to protect the Ukrainian language and culture have deepened divisions within communities across the country. The main conflict in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea, as interconnected events, together with the government’s reaction in the form of radicalization and nationalization of policy and discourse, have provoked local conflicts within communities between social groups based on ethnicity, political views, support for pro‑Russian or pro‑European positions, and so on.
In Kharkiv the dispute over the removal of the Lenin monument split residents into several camps. In September 2014 pro‑Ukrainian groups, fighters from the Azov battalion, representatives of Kharkiv Euromaidan and Hromadska Varta, and local ultras dismantled the Lenin monument during a public action, saying they wanted to prevent the development of separatist movements in Kharkiv. Kharkiv residents were divided in their attitudes: some supported radical decommunization, others criticized the arbitrary dismantling and favored less radical methods, showing solidarity with the mayor and demanding the monument’s restoration. This led to a confrontation between the regional administration and city hall and created tension in the city community. The case provoked broad public resonance and involved wide public debate. The socio‑political confrontation between ideological opponents was ultimately resolved and social tension reduced after a dialogue process was carried out.
Photo: Oleksii Holubov
In summary, the armed conflict creates additional security risks for communities. The overall societal context of armed aggression increases social tension and instability in communities. This raises the risk of local conflicts amid political instability, social polarization, and mounting tension, which ultimately leads to instability within communities.
Decentralization and security
The decentralization reform that began in 2014 changed the approach to managing safety at the local level. United territorial communities gained the powers and responsibility to organize local safety systems. Changes in legislation on local self-government and public safety shift the country’s organization of security from centralized management by central executive authorities to local self-government bodies. The Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government” states that organizing the civil protection system falls within the competence of local councils and is headed by the head of the united territorial community (Art. 42 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government”; Art. 19, para. 2 of the Civil Protection Code of Ukraine).
While freed to plan their own security strategies, territorial communities faced a number of challenges related to building infrastructure while simultaneously accumulating knowledge and managerial competencies among local government staff and authorities. Building the organizational infrastructure of UTCs proved difficult because UTCs are effectively new territorial entities that require creating new bodies from scratch. Another challenge was the lack of practical knowledge in organizing decentralization.
For example, when a UTC was formed in Vinnytsia region alongside a parallel police reform that included, among other things, a reduction in district police officers in the regions, Severynivska united territorial community—with a population of over 5,000—was left with only two district officers who could not cover the territory or the full scope of tasks. Responsibility for organizing and ensuring safety at the community level fell to local self-government. The local community met this challenge: the village council and local NGOs joined efforts to create a rapid response center for security threats. Volunteers from the community work there, monitoring threats via a video-surveillance system and, when necessary, passing information to the relevant authorities. Involving local residents in building security provides two advantages for community sustainability:
- Residents have the deepest understanding of the dangers and risks present in their community;
- Cooperation between local government bodies, law enforcement and citizens helps build trust within the community under the difficult conditions of decentralization.
Local self-government bodies have also taken on a significant share of resources and budget-management powers. In addition to being able to manage and plan security-related expenditures from the local budget, united territorial communities (UTCs) can apply for co-financing from special state funds, for example the State Fund for Regional Development (DFRR), and request a subvention for territorial community infrastructure development. Thus, decentralization has brought communities not only challenges but also opportunities to act effectively on local security.
Each territorial community can respond to security threats specific to it, account for all local risk factors, and create a warning and response system that makes that community safe. When factors that generate local security threats combine with broader security threats, this can lead to armed conflict. Responding to such multi-level security risks may require developing sustainable, community-level solutions aimed at overcoming security threats both locally and nationally. Ultimately, this addresses risks from national armed conflict as well as specific local dangers.
To achieve sustainable, consistent decisions and build trust between institutions and citizens locally, each community needs a permanent platform for interaction and conflict resolution. One nonviolent practice for resolving conflicts and making decisions is the use of dialogue. Through a facilitated process for discussing responses to security problems, community residents and local authorities can not only reach understanding but also create space for systematic communication and cooperation. Dialogue practices on community security reduce social tension between groups with different political positions and identities, and ultimately help lessen the consequences of societal divisions caused by armed conflict.
Regular interactions at the community level reduce conflict-proneness in situations where classical peace—an end to armed conflict—is difficult to achieve. The theory of "everyday peace" holds that daily interaction between polarized groups interrupts conflict and breaks the dominant war narrative by introducing practices of mutual respect and cooperation. Therefore, conducting dialogues on security amid an ongoing armed conflict contributes to reducing the intensity of threats caused by the conflict in the East and the annexation of Crimea.
The process of decentralization and the transfer of powers and resources to communities is a local state-building process that also requires cooperation among various community participants through democratic practices. Dialogue, which becomes a constant tool of interaction within the community, fosters the development of democracy, encourages residents’ participation in security governance, and builds trust in institutions and the community as a whole.
We cannot predict when or under what scenario the conflict will end. For now, communities must take measures and respond to conflict-related threats. Decentralization is currently in its final stage, but communities still need the development of democratic grassroots practices. The transfer of security management to the responsibility of territorial communities (OTGs) can be seen as an opportunity to strengthen community sustainability. First, communities have the powers and resources for security infrastructure. Second, creating a platform for cooperation among stakeholders helps build trust and sustainable ties between residents, local authorities, the police and other parties.