Introduction

The end of the Cold War a decade ago gave space to a growing international debate among scholars and policy-makers seeking a more useful definition of “security” — and a more appropriate focus for the field of “security studies”.¹ In this debate, a very traditional view articulated as late as 1991 insisted that the field should be confined to the “. . .the threat, use and control of military force” within the classical context of state-centered international competition and conflict.² However, well before that time, others were arguing that traditional definitions were far too narrow, denying the discipline adequate scope to analyze proliferating threats on the international scene,³ including those emanating from the natural environment.⁴

The debate has grown to the point that (American scholar) Steve Smith could recently divide the “non-traditional” literature on the subject into seven distinct “schools”, with approaches varying from the earlier foci to the “feminist” to the “post-structural”.⁵ Not to be outdone, an author in the United Kingdom found a categorisation of security’s differing “forms and manifestations” in the world’s great poetic traditions.⁶ Ramesh Thakur (of the United Nations) has characterised notions of security in the post Cold War environment as “politically powerful, weakly conceptualised and increasingly contested”.⁷

Scholars in recent years have not been content to view “security” solely through the lens of state requirements and state interests, and have challenged the notion that “national security” should be viewed exclusively through the perspective of strategic interests external to the state. Robin Luckham, for example, characterises security as a “public good” that is “not simply the private property of the State or of particular dominant interests”. He acknowledges, however, that “in practice it tends to be imbedded in structures of power and privilege at many removes from the safety and welfare of ordinary people”.⁸

The growing debate has had several dimensions. For years, scholars of international relations have argued over appropriate “levels of analysis”, reflecting differing views on the referent object of security. Put differently as a question, in the absence of security, who (or what) is at risk — states, communities, groups, individuals? Or phrased slightly differently, is “security” really about individuals and sub-state groups? Another dimension had to do with the inclusiveness of the field. If a risk does not involve “the threat or actual use of force between political actors”, should it qualify as an appropriate object of “security” studies?⁹ Or, more specifically, what kinds of threats deserve to be treated as “security threats” and what kinds do not merit that designation?

Given the range of potential meanings, and the ongoing debates among scholars and practitioners, it is entirely appropriate to ask the questions: What is “security”, who gets to define it and who has the prerogative and responsibility to provide it? At no time in human history have these questions been more relevant than at present. For much of human history, single individuals or small elites have insisted on an exclusive right to define “security” and to “manage” it. In European contexts, since the Peace of Westphalia (1648), classic definitions have centered on the integrity of the nation-state and maintenance of its governing regime.¹⁰ However, the times are changing. In much of the world, definition and application no longer are the exclusive purview of a small political or academic elite. In fact, an appeal to “security” increasingly is used to mobilise popular concern for a variety of agendas, be they ideological, social, economic or environmental.

Some very innovative thinking on this subject has come from African scholars and practitioners, as they have grappled with the enormous problems of national development and security sector reform on the African continent. Though there are substantial differences on the issue among Africans, they have challenged classical European conceptualisations of “security” and have in a few cases begun the difficult task of implementing structures to achieve “security” as they have redefined it. This paper notes some of the major trends in ongoing redefinition of the concept in the West before highlighting some of the emerging thinking in Africa. (The intention here is to provide illustrative summary, not exhaustive analysis.) The paper will conclude by noting several ramifications of the ongoing debate.

[ Go back to the top ]

© 2001-2009. Page developed by the webteam. Queries contact the webmaster.