What does Professionalisation of Intelligence mean today?

I wrote my book chapter "Professionalisation of Intelligence in Africa" about 18 months ago. Since then, global developments have made its message relevant far beyond Africa, especially for intelligence agencies and private-sector teams that provide decision support in high stakes democratic contexts. 

For decades, Western intelligence communities (and academia) have debated whether intelligence meets the sociological criteria of a "profession". My verdict? It doesn’t matter. In today’s knowledge economy, professionalisation is no longer about exclusivity or status. It is about professionalism: the lived practice of expertise, service, and ethics, rather than chasing "profession-ship", individual certifications or institutional accolades.

Right now, many of us are working through the stressors of a changing world order, an accelerating news cycle, rapid technological change that may obsolete parts of our work, and clients (and colleagues) who too often are ignorant about the value and nature of intelligence. Maintaining objectivity, even motivation, can feel like a daily struggle. 

I have deep respect for those professionals who remain in the toxic trenches, still believing that institutions can recover with better leadership and governance. 

Back to basics: why, what and how we do intelligence

In times like these, we have to return to first principles. Below are three universal pillars that help keep intelligence work professional amid politicisation, deception, misinformation, and the sidelining (or dismantling) of intelligence capability. 

The professionalisation of intelligence depends heavily (but not solely) on the governing environment in which it operates: legal constraints against abuse, effective oversight, and limited political interference. But even where those conditions are weak, professionals still have agency in how they practice their craft. 

A hard boundary: democracy vs regime protection

I argue that these pillars are normative and primarily applicable in democracies. In undemocratic states, intelligence often functions as an instrument of regime security where subservience is rewarded more than professionalism.

A useful rule of thumb: the decline of professionalism inside intelligence institutions is an early warning indicator of where a country’s political governance may be heading. In my chapter, South Africa is a case study: many structural requirements for professionalism exist, yet political context inhibits their realisation.

The Three Pillars of Intelligence Professionalism:

Ethics, Independence and Sound Governance: 

a) "Truth to Power" is the keystone ethic. In a democracy, the cornerstone of intelligence professionalism is political objectivity. The ability to speak "truth to power" without fear or favour is what distinguishes a professional service from a regime protection agency. This requires a fundamental shift in loyalty. Professionals must understand that they: 1) do not stand above the law, 2) owe their loyalty to the Constitution and the State, not to a specific political party or leader and 3) must resist the distortion of assessments to fit a policy agenda. Again, I know it is difficult to counter this when your job security and income is on the line. Each one has to deal with this conundrum in their own way. 

In my own case, I was in no position of power or influence where I could change what was happening in my agency. I decided that my professional identity is stronger than my organisational identity, resigned and started the first intelligence training company in Africa. Looking back, I'm still grateful that my family survived a year without any income. But, some of my best colleagues stayed behind, because their coping mechanisms were different than mine, and I salute them for that. They went on grinding and pushing out the best intelligence they could, regardless of what happened with it on policy level.

b) Ethics and accountability must be codified and embedded. Professionalism cannot rely on the integrity of a few good men and women; it must be inculcated in the institution's doctrine, SOPs, internal quality criteria, HR policies, disciplinary systems, governance processes, and planning. Many intelligence agencies have a Code of Conduct and other governance documents (including training material) that should serve as practical mechanisms for defining values and expected conduct in the execution of duties. However, they are often weakly enforced (or perceived to be) especially where legal or organisational norms are weak. Culture changes only when leadership and a professional cadre make ethics lived, not merely documented.

c) Leadership selection is critical. Leadership selection matters as much as individual competence. Professionalisation collapses when senior roles are filled based on loyalty rather than competence. Leadership selection builds continuity, trust, and capability, or destroys it. 

Tradecraft and institutional systems designed for Professionalism

a) Standardised Tradecraft builds trust through consistency. Our reputation is our only currency. One of the fastest accelerators of professionalisation is adopting analytic best practices and standardising expectations for quality. Yes, even if not everything can or should be standardised, especially in the operational environment. Key global standards include Auditability: Reasoning must be logical and referenced so it can be checked, Probability Language: a shared vocabulary for uncertainty (e.g., “highly likely”) to reduce ambiguity, and Differentiation: clear separation of raw information from analytic judgement. 

b) Human capital is a system, not a slogan. Professionalisation requires a whole-of-workforce design: recruitment standards, equitable remuneration, training and development, and performance management that rewards excellence and professional courage. 

Legitimacy and public trust are professional assets and not PR luxuries 

Intelligence does not exist in a vacuum. It relies on the relationship between the intelligence agency/unit, the client, and the society or organisation it serve. Engaging with the client, public (where appropriate) and oversight bodies to demystify intelligence, humanise the workforce and strengthen the "professional identity" that makes accountability real.

A word of caution

Professionalisation is not a cure-all for the organisational and political challenges intelligence agencies and units face. It won't automatically deliver political stability, human rights compliance, or good governance, nor will it prevent politicisation or abuse of intelligence. Those outcomes depend on broader political and social dynamics. 

Professionalisation helps, but it’s not a substitute for organisational leadership or accountable statecraft. Still, it remains the most sustainable path to an intelligence service that protects rather than threatens ... within the confines of the context in which it operates.

On an individual level, those who choose to stay, despite all the attacks on the institution and their professionalism, must be commended. Go on being professional and don't give up the flag! Those who decide to leave, I hope you find an even better way to channel your passion and expertise. Sela!