Towards a Human Security Approach to Peacebuilding

W IS THE RECORD, EFFECTIVENESS AND LEGACY of liberal approaches to peacebuilding in conflict-prone and post-conflict societies? Aside from promoting stability and containing conflict, why does international peacebuilding have a mixed—or even poor—record in promoting welfare, equitable human development and inclusive democratic politics? Have these shortcomings jeopardized overall peacebuilding objectives and contributed to questions about its legitimacy? How might alternative approaches to peacebuilding, based upon welfare and public service delivery, promote a more sustainable and inclusive form of peace? These questions allude to a core concern regarding international peacebuilding: the limitations of existing approaches and the need for greater emphasis upon welfare economics, human development and local engagement. Peacebuilding in conflict-prone and post-conflict countries—aimed at preventing the resumption or escalation of violent conflict and establishing a durable and selfsustaining peace—has generated a range of academic and policy debates, and controversies. A key element of these debates relates to the nature and impact of liberal peacebuilding: the top-down, institutionalist promotion of democracy, market-based economic reforms and a range of other institutions associated with “modern” states as a driving force for building “peace”.1 Despite notable successes in promoting stability and containing conflicts, the record in terms of promoting durable peace—based on sustainable economic growth, service delivery, self-sustaining institutions, inclusive democratic practices, personal security, and the rule of law—has been questionable. The reasons for such shortcomings, insofar as the role of the international peacebuilding and development donor community is concerned, may be sought in two areas. One is the rationale behind the peacebuilding agenda, which has increasingly conflated the need for stability in fragile states as an international security imperative. The other is the problems related to the liberal institutionalist models that guide peacebuilding and development programmes, and the implementation of these models in post-conflict settings. Despite noble intentions, peacebuilding by international actors has often resulted in a heavy reliance on top-down approaches and—according to some observers—a NumbER 2, 2010