This article forms the introduction to a special section on post-conflict peacebuilding (PCPB) in the journal Security Dialogue. It outlines a critical approach to the analysis of PCPB, and argues that peacebuilding requires a comprehensive, visionary approach encompassing all three core functions of the modern state: security, welfare and representation.
State failure (in functional terms) must be distinguished from state collapse (in institutional terms). International responses to dysfunctional states demand a rethinking of both sovereignty (when to intervene) and state-building (what to rebuild).
War and conflict were driving forces behind state formation processes in Europe for centuries, but are now more commonly associated with state de-formation and state failure. International interventions must also be seen as profound ruptures in state-formation processes.
The debate on humanitarian intervention has renewed discussion of the concept of sovereignty. Recent thinking has shifted the focus from absolute sovereignty to sovereignty as responsibility (for upholding the rights of citizens), which suggests that sovereignty should be divisible between different actors.
Discussion of state failure should focus on an understanding of the three core functions of the state: security, welfare and representation. These three are closely interlinked.
- Security is a precondition for both welfare and representation.
- Increased welfare reduces conflicts, provides the resources necessary for security, and increases the capacity for and propensity to political participation.
- Representation allows for peaceful external relations, and non-violent resolution of internal disputes. It also offers optimal solutions to redistribution, and promotes economic growth and social justice.
When a state fails to fulfil these three functions, what is the role of externally-driven post-conflict peacebuilding (PCPB)? Where should emphasis be placed, and when? Should success be measured in terms of functional improvement, or local ownership? There is no quick-fix answer; post-conflict interventions must aim at a comprehensive solution addressing all three core state functions.
The author is sceptical about current approaches to post-conflict peacebuilding rooted in a liberal state-building agenda. International actors must instead take a three-fold approach.
- Human security encompasses both ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom from fear’. Development and security reinforce each other; they can be supported by ‘piecemeal social engineering’ rooted in acknowledgement of the political, not technical, nature of PCPB.
- In welfare, interventions must tackle the parallel or shadow economies that sustain conflict, for example through designing control regimes for conflict goods (such as the Kimberley Process).
- Rebuilding representation requires an emphasis on reparative justice, recognition of the diversity of local actors and interests, and a supportive yet critical approach to civil society.
Such a critical approach to peace-building does not negate the possibility of social engineering, but questions the limits and usefulness of blueprint solutions. Instead, the author stresses the complexities of post-conflict situations, and calls for a deep understanding of social, historical and political dynamics.
