How can security structures in fragile states be rebuilt? This paper by the Danish Institute of International Studies explores policy concepts in the donor community on how to deal with security challenges in states with weak governments. The paper argues that donor policies may not produce the desired improvements in security because the approach is too state-centric. The paper suggests looking beyond the formal state institutions and applying a more contextual approach that allows for building on informal and non-state security structures.
The emphasis which donors place on boosting the central government may prevent the international community from understanding the phenomenon of state failure. The international community tends to see failed states as places where everything is chaos and anarchy. However, the collapse of state authority does not necessarily mean the end of order. Basic human questions of how to ensure physical and economic security do not disappear because the state does.
Alternative non-state systems of order evolve in the process of state decay. Some of the core functions associated with the state may be undertaken by different types of non-state actors. Warlords, traditional leaders, religious communities, neighbourhood or community groups can provide some form of security in times of violence and perhaps a rudimentary justice system or access to very basic social services.
The international community rarely engages with such actors. This policy may need to be changed if sustainable solutions to the security dilemmas and challenges in failed states are to be found.
- The focus on formal authority structures may prevent international actors from understanding and supporting informal systems.
- Often, ordinary citizens are seen as passive victims of state failure, when in fact they may be experts at the art of survival and adaptation.
- The current policy approach relies on a pre-conceived notion of the shape, direction and content of reform, which leads to overly technical perceptions of the dynamics.
- Despite the emphasis placed on human security, the policy framework pays little attention to the question of how populations respond to security problems, where the reach of the state security system is weak.
- It ignores political factors, such as power and perceptions, which are key to any process of change.
Overcoming these limitations requires looking beyond normative notions of a state and its security sector. The key challenges for donors are to:
- identify the different security institutions that exist and determine whether their resources can be harnessed in increasing public security;
- move beyond a strict public/private distinction and acknowledge the extent to which people have come to rely on non-state providers for their day-to-day security needs;
- keep an open mind and work with a pragmatic down-to-earth approach. This does not imply supporting whichever power-holder is in control of the territory. It means trying to work within the coping mechanisms of ordinary people; and
- understand sources of knowledge and capacity hidden in local structures and networks, which are informal and therefore often invisible to the international community.
