Defensive development,combative contradictions: towards an international political sociology of global militarism in Africa

ABSTRACT

Drawing on international political sociology, this article shows how the merger of development and security has become part of the ideational architecture that facilitates a new ‘feel-good’ militarism in Africa. Contemporary international reform efforts are designed to restrain military power in the name of development, democracy and civilian oversight, but also to strengthen the coercive capacities of African security institutions and make them more efficient in the global fight against violent extremism. Such defensive development efforts have implications for the historically problematic relationship of the African state with modern forms of organised force, reconfiguring and recalibrating relations and dynamics between the state, military forces and external actors. The article concludes that defensive development is fraught with combative contradictions and risks becoming the handmaiden not only of increased militaristic violence, but also of oppression and the restriction of freedom and democracy.     

Ethics and Foreign Policy: the Antinomies of New Labour's 'Third Way' in Sub-Saharan Africa

This article explores how New Labour has attempted to implement its ideas about a 'third way' foreign policy in sub-Saharan Africa. Through an examination of British foreign policy practices, we explore whether New Labour has succeeded in finding a 'third way' between traditional views of socialism and capitalism in Africa. In particular, the article focuses on New Labour's attempts to build peace, prosperity and democracy on the African continent. We conclude that although New Labour's claims to add an 'ethical dimension' to foreign policy have succeeded in giving Britain a higher profile in the international arena, the implementation of such a policy is intrinsically difficult. These difficulties in turn arise from the antinomies embodied in New Labour's policy, or more specifically from the tension between the liberal internationalism of the third way and traditional concerns for the national interest, as well as the contradictions inherent in a commitment to both political and economic liberalism.     

Security sector reform: bringing the private in

As the links between security and development have been increasingly recognized, Security Sector Reform (SSR) has become a central part of development policy. Following a traditional Weberian conception of the state, these programmes are almost exclusively focused on the public security sector, neglecting the extent to which people in developing countries have come to rely on private security providers for their day-to-day security needs. While the reform of public security institutions is undoubtedly important, this article argues that a strict public/private distinction is a poor guide to security sector reform. Focusing on Sierra Leone and Kenya, the article argues that ‘bringing the private in’ is crucial to a comprehensive understanding of the security situation in most countries and that any attempt to ensure better security for all must take account of private actors. Private security companies and their integration into SSR matter not simply in terms of the maintenance of law and order, but also in terms of who has access to security, and ultimately, for the legitimacy of social and political orders.     

The power of partnerships in global governance

Development partnerships are frequently represented as a way of giving recipient countries ‘ownership’ of their development programmes, whereas critics argue that partnerships are little more than conditionality by another name. Drawing on analyses of governmentality in modern liberal societies, this article advances an alternative understanding and argues that development partnerships can be regarded as a form of advanced liberal rule that increasingly govern through the explicit commitment to the self‐government and agency of recipient states. Focusing in particular on the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), it argues that as a form of advanced liberal power, partnerships work not primarily as direct domination and imposition, but through promises of incorporation and inclusion. They derive their power through simultaneously excluding and incorporating, and by using freedom as a formula of rule partnerships help produce modern, self‐disciplined citizens and states by enlisting them as responsible agents in their own development.     

Development policy and the democratic peace in Sub-Saharan Africa

The contention that ‘democracies do not ?ght one another’ has gained widespread acceptance in the discipline of international relations, as well as among policymakers and international institutions. In the post-Cold War era, this contention has formed part of the justi?cation for making development assistance conditional on democratic reforms in recipient countries. This article explores the democratic peace thesis in relation to Sub-Saharan Africa, and argues that the relationship between peace and democracy is much more complex than commonly allowed for in conventional liberal analyses. Contemporary development policies that are intended to promote peace, democracy and stability are frequently implicated in the production and continuation of con?ict. Accordingly, the article contends that many of Africa’s conflicts and so-called ‘failed states’ are best understood in light of policies inspired, in part, by the principles of the democratic peace thesis. The argument is illustrated with reference to four countries on the African continent: Côte d’Ivoire, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zambia.