Is the Future of SSR non-linear?

ABSTRACT

This article explores issues around security sector reform (SSR) and the involvement of the international community in peace-building. It argues that the international architecture which surrounds SSR privileges a particular form of knowledge that reflects a technocratic approach to security, and illustrates this by systematically examining the literature. Research on the literature itself shows that three core themes dominate: state-centric approaches, technocratic approaches, and approaches to local ownership. These comprise a current, linear approach to SSR that ignores much of the critical literature on peace-building. The article then goes on to draw on some of this critical literature to develop an alternative approach to SSR building using a non-linear approach which incorporates a better understanding of institutional politics, an emphasis on process rather than structures, and analysis of hidden politics.

KEYWORDS:

• security sector reform
• linear peacebuilding
• statebuilding
• security
• intervention

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Paul Jackson is Professor of African Politics at the University of Birmingham and a research fellow at the Centre for African Studies in the University of the Free State. He has published widely on the subject of peace-building, including Securing Sierra Leone, 1997–2013: Defence, Diplomacy and Development in Action (Royal United Services Institute, 2016) and The Elgar Handbook of Security and Development (2015).

Shivit Bakrania is a Researcher in the International Development Department, University of Birmingham. He was formerly the manager of the Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform and is a post-graduate researcher.

ORCID

Paul Jackson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0933-028X

Notes

1 The author was an adviser to the research process and worked with the lead researcher for the study.

2 Identified as part of the initial brief for the study by the DFID.

3 The DFID uses the term ‘theory of change’ to denote activities that may lead to a change in circumstances for the target population. This is widely used within the DFID but is also extremely imprecise. A very good review of the use of this terminology concluded: ‘we find that there is no consensus on how to define ToC, although it is commonly understood as an articulation of how and why a given intervention will lead to specific change’ (Stein and Valters 2012, 2). In addition this review actually changed their focus to ‘ToC approaches’ to reflect the confusion over terminology, the wide range of activities and the lack of a core definition. It should also be noted that this is not a specific DFID activity and that these types of activity are widely deployed amongst development agencies.

4 This might be attributed to an academic, and practitioner, bias towards quantitative methods to provide ‘hard evidence’, but is not necessarily specific to SSR.

5 There is an extensive critical literature in this area, but see in particular Duffield (2001), Mac Ginty and Richmond (2013), and Pospisil and Kühn (2016).

6 This fund, the Sierra Leone Security Sector Project (SILSEP) was established in 1999 and operated over multiple years, acting as an umbrella project over the SSR process (see Jackson and Albrecht 2016).