Conclusion

This chapter historicizes, contextualizes, and theorizes the triangular relationship among governments, intelligence agencies, and democratic citizens in light of the observations and comparisons in this book. It posits accountability as a means to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the openness and transparency of democratic first principles on the one hand, and the power and secrecy of state intelligence on the other. Democracies constantly have to demonstrate their steadfast commitment to playing by the same rules they claim to value and defend as this practice ultimately sets them apart from authoritarianism. Intelligence accountability thus emerges as a quintessentially social process that is both integral and existential to democracy. Accountability tethers intelligence and security communities to the democratic society they serve and the rules, authorizations, and limitations it has imposed. In response to global threats and technological change, however, intelligence now coalesces as an epistemic community that cooperates across agencies, departments, and jurisdictions. Domestic, international, and supranational coordination and collaboration within intelligence communities and across the Five Eyes, other allies, partners, and beyond, vastly complicate the seemingly straightforward task of holding any one intelligence agency or community accountable. Accountability lags changing and expanded intelligence powers and capabilities, which can have deleterious consequences for public trust and support under which intelligence operates in a democratic society. Ergo, the lessons in the comparative study of intelligence are as much about reconciling intelligence and democracy as they are about innovation and adaptation in defending democracy as hostile state and non-state threat actors and vectors proliferate.