Abstract
Within the repertoire of international stabilization interventions, security sector reform (SSR) and other conventional efforts to strengthen security and governance institutions remain central. There is increasing recognition that the policies and practices operating under the rubric of SSR are blind to the empirical reality of security pluralism in most stabilization contexts. In these contexts, both security providers directly authorized by the state (police, army) and a multitude of other coercive actors engage in producing and reproducing order, and enjoy varying degrees of public authority and legitimacy. Recognizing this, research was undertaken in three cities (Beirut, Nairobi, and Tunis) to discern the conditions enabling various security providers to forge constructive relations with local populations and governance actors. Drawing on insights generated by these case studies, this article problematizes conventional state-centric approaches and argues for a bold reimagining of SSR. It makes the case for an SSR approach that prioritizes promoting the accountability and responsiveness of all security providers, integrating efforts to strengthen the social determinants of security, and enabling a phased transition from relational to rules-based systems of security provision and governance.
Highlights
For more than two decades, the policies and programs known as security sector reform (SSR) have been a preferred instrument in the stabilization toolkit, aimed at averting theemergence of armed violence in volatile and post-conflict contexts
A recent review of SSR programming conducted for DFID casts doubt on the utility of these investments from an end-user perspective, insofar as their effect on the everyday security of citizens is not supported by strong evidence (Denney and Valters 2015)
This article will problematize SSR in contexts of security pluralism, wherein both security providers directly authorized by the state and a multitude of other coercive actors engage in producing and reproducing order, and enjoy contingent degrees of public authority and legitimacy
Summary
Within the repertoire of international stabilization interventions, security sector reform (SSR) and other conventional efforts to strengthen security and governance institutions remain central. There is increasing recognition that the policies and practices operating under the rubric of SSR are blind to the empirical reality of security pluralism in most stabilization contexts In these contexts, both security providers directly authorized by the state (police, army) and a multitude of other coercive actors engage in producing and reproducing order, and enjoy varying degrees of public authority and legitimacy. Drawing on insights generated by these case studies, this article problematizes conventional state-centric approaches and argues for a bold reimagining of SSR It makes the case for an SSR approach that prioritizes promoting the accountability and responsiveness of all security providers, integrating efforts to strengthen the social determinants of security, and enabling a phased transition from relational to rules-based systems of security provision and governance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Stability: International Journal of Security and Development
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
