State security, securitisation and human security in Africa: The tensions, contradictions and hopes for reconciliation

dc.contributor.author Appiagyei-Atua, Kwadwo
dc.contributor.author Muhindo, Tresor Makunya
dc.contributor.author Oyakhirome, Iruebafa
dc.contributor.author Kabachwezi, Estella Kansiime
dc.contributor.author Buabeng-Baidoo, Stephen
dc.date.accessioned 2018-02-22T15:32:19Z
dc.date.available 2018-02-22T15:32:19Z
dc.date.available 2023-01-26T16:47:34Z
dc.date.issued 2017-12
dc.description.abstract External actors have predominantly driven the securitisation agenda in Africa with the architecture traceable to Africa’s immediate post-independence past. This article theorises about a double-faced securitisation process in Africa – ‘securitisation from outside’ influencing ‘securitisation within’. The theoretical framework is used to identify three phases of securitisation in Africa. The first phase started during the Cold War era when Africa was inserted into the Cold War politics to fight proxy wars for either the west or the east. As a result, the big powers overlooked human rights and democratic concerns on the continent and focused on promoting their security interests by propping dictatorial and predatory regimes to do their bidding. The second phase connects with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which brought hope of ending the securitised environment in Africa with its attendant expansion of the political space for civil society and political party activism to flourish. This development resulted in the emergence of the African Union to replace the Organisation of African Unity and to introduce principles that shifted from a state-centred to a human-centred security focus. However, the human security project could not work due to tensions with the securitisation of the development agenda being promoted by the donor community. The third phase is the declaration of the ‘War on Terror’ which has moved the focus toward a ‘risk/fear/threat’ project. In response, most African leaders have adeptly exploited this new environment to their advantage by shrinking the political space and criminalising dissent. The securitized environment has done little to solve many of Africa's development problems. Rather, we see the rollback of advances made with regard to human rights, democracy and respect for the rule of law. The theoretical framework is also employed to do a case study of securitisation in three African countries – Uganda, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Key words: securitisation; security; human rights; human security; sovereignty en_US
dc.identifier.citation K Appiagyei-Atua, TM Muhindo, I Oyakhirome, EK Kabachwezi & S Buabeng-Baidoo ‘State security, securitisation and human security in Africa: The tensions, contradictions and hopes for reconciliation’ (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal 326 http://dx.doi.org/10.25330/1462
dc.identifier.uri https://repository.gchumanrights.org/handle/20.500.11825/425.2
dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.25330/1462
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Global Campus en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Volume;1;2
dc.subject security en_US
dc.subject social security en_US
dc.subject human rights en_US
dc.subject sovereignty en_US
dc.subject Africa en_US
dc.subject Democratic Republic of the Congo en_US
dc.subject Uganda en_US
dc.subject Nigeria en_US
dc.title State security, securitisation and human security in Africa: The tensions, contradictions and hopes for reconciliation en_US
dc.type Article en_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
08_art._GC_ Journal_2017_2.pdf
Size:
155.01 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Appiagyei-Atua_et_al._GCHRJ_1.2(2017)
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Collections

Version History

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Version Editor Date Summary
2 *
2023-01-26 16:47:13
doi_update
* Selected version