“I have cherished the ideal of a free and democratic society in which all people live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.” (Mandela) In 2012, 51 countries were found to be in an authoritarian regime. This equates to approximately 37% of the world's population. This number has remained fairly stable for almost two decades, which is precisely why Security Sector Reform (SSR) was developed. SSR is a concept that first appeared in the 1990s, and while there is no globally accepted definition, it generally refers to the process of rebuilding or reforming a state's security sector. The security sector is simply the part of government dedicated to the survival of the state through the use of economic power, diplomacy and political power. So, in essence, SSR is just an attempt to develop sustainable peace in countries that are in the process of transitioning from a post-conflict or post-authoritarian society. So this poses an interesting question. How does security sector reform actually contribute to sustainable peace? Is there any evidence that it actually works? Based on active programs in both Colombia and the Palestinian territories, it is evident that security sector reform has had a very distinct effect on the idea of ​​sustainable peace. There have been many attempts to reform the security sector in societies in transition, the only way to ensure that the reform is respected is to reduce poverty within the society as much as possible. One of the main reasons why security sector reforms consistently fail is because the poverty and poor state of human writings within the transition area are so vast that they lead to a series of events that almost always erase any possibility of permanent reform. DCAF writer Michael Brzoska said “growth is the most powerful weapon in the fight to achieve more