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

dc.contributor.authorAppiagyei-Atua, Kwadwo
dc.contributor.authorMuhindo, Tresor Makunya
dc.contributor.authorOyakhirome, Iruebafa
dc.contributor.authorKabachwezi, Estella Kansiime
dc.contributor.authorBuabeng-Baidoo, Stephen
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-22T15:32:19Z
dc.date.available2018-02-22T15:32:19Z
dc.date.available2023-01-26T16:47:34Z
dc.date.issued2017-12
dc.description.abstractExternal 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; sovereigntyen_US
dc.identifier.citationK 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.urihttps://repository.gchumanrights.org/handle/20.500.11825/425.2
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.25330/1462
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherGlobal Campusen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVolume;1;2
dc.subjectsecurityen_US
dc.subjectsocial securityen_US
dc.subjecthuman rightsen_US
dc.subjectsovereigntyen_US
dc.subjectAfricaen_US
dc.subjectDemocratic Republic of the Congoen_US
dc.subjectUgandaen_US
dc.subjectNigeriaen_US
dc.titleState security, securitisation and human security in Africa: The tensions, contradictions and hopes for reconciliationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
07.Securisation_Africa_GCHRJ_1.2.pdf
Size:
172.84 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Securisation_Africa 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
VersionDateSummary
2*
2023-01-26 22:47:13
doi_update
* Selected version