Monograph 122: From State Security to Human Security in Southern Africa, Edited by Cheryl Hendricks

This monograph brings together a collection of edited think pieces presented at a workshop aimed at identifying policy research and capacity-building needs to enhance human security in Southern Africa. The workshop was hosted by the Southern Africa Human Security Programme of the Institute for Security Studies, and held at the Slave Lodge, Cape Town, on 1-2 December 2005.

Human security is the dominant discourse within international, regional and sub-regional organisations tasked with security and development. It has displaced the traditional state security paradigm with its preoccupation with protecting national interests and state borders through the projection of power. Although the basic tenets that constitute the human security paradigm can be traced to various alternative approaches voiced on development and security, it was the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Report of 1994 that gave concrete expression to, and was later used to popularise, this approach to security. That report, drawing on the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, employed the phrase ‘freedom from want and freedom from fear’ to advocate a people-centred approach to security, to link development to security, and to broaden both the identification of possible threats and the actors responsible for producing and resolving insecurity.

The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) has integrated the human security approach into its constructions of, and policy frameworks for, peace and security. Southern Africa, a region defined by its anti-colonial and civil wars, is undoubtedly enjoying an unprecedented measure of peace and stability, despite continued tensions in Zimbabwe, Swaziland and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Peace agreements in Mozambique, South Africa, Angola and the DRC created an enabling environment for democratisation and development to take root. However, the ‘peace dividend’ has yet to materialise for the vast majority of citizens in Southern Africa. The road map for transforming these states and the everyday lives of their citizenry has been drafted in the many protocols, policies and strategic frameworks, and much of the institutional apparatus is already in place. Yet, there remains a marked disjuncture between the region’s goals and aspirations, and the implementation and/or outcomes thereof. The often-stated reasons for this are lack of capacity, resources and political will. However, in the absence of contextualisation, these reasons remain vague and, therefore, without the specificities for redress.

This monograph broadly sets out to (1) unpack the conceptual, methodological and institutional issues that emerge from the adoption of a human security perspective; (2) indicate some of the major human security challenges confronting Southern Africa and; (3) highlight the implications for policy research and capacity-building in the region.

Why human security?

Concepts, perspectives and/or paradigms do not emerge into a vacuum. They gain currency because they are able to better account for existent realities and they enjoy legitimacy because they resonate with the dominant ideology. Peace, democracy and development emerged as the key pillars of the post-Cold War security framework. Development perspectives had, since the late 1980s, blamed the lack of development on domestic governance issues. The violent eruptions of internal conflicts in many African countries, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, served as confirmation of the lack of good governance and democracy as primary explanatory variables for conflict. The state was thus posited as instrumental in creating conflict and insecurity.

What is human security?

The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report noted that human security is an integrative concept that must stress the security of people. It contended that the concept of security needed to change from an exclusive stress on national security to a much greater stress on people’s security; from security through armaments to security through sustainable human development.1 The report identified a list of perceived new security threats, namely, economic, food, health, environment, personal, community, and political security.

In essence, the human security approach seeks to fundamentally question, and alter, whom we protect and how that protection is afforded. The approach takes individuals, rather than states, as its referent, and emphasises the need for a holistic, long-term view of security that includes the redress of structural inequities (or in Galtung’s terminology ‘structural violence’). It identifies different levels of security, viz, personal, community, national and international, and argues that their interdependence implies that insecurity in one sphere has ramifications for other spheres – it is therefore not a case of ‘one at the expense of the other’. The primary role of the state is to protect its citizens, but, given past experiences, this cannot be left as the sole preserve of the state. International and regional organisations have the responsibility to intervene and protect when human lives are under threat and any sustainable transformation has to include civil society in the formulation and execution of conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction agendas.

Part of the difficulty in implementing a human security perspective is that:

State security (the absence of external or internal threats) is far easier to measure than individual security. However, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) provide the yardstick of minimum requirements for community security and if we meet these we are well on our way to creating a safer world. It is evident that, for example, the choice of political parties is important, but its relevance is diminished when basic human needs are not met, i.e. when people do not have access to clean water or sufficient food; when they fear for their lives because of high rates of crime; when their human rights are subject to continuous abuse; when they lose their dignity because of unemployment or rape; or when they die from preventable diseases.

Too often, power is removed from our analysis. Yet, power is central to unpacking the types of policies that emerge and how they are implemented. Who makes decisions? What influences those decisions – who, or what, are the power brokers responding to? It is only when we have a better understanding of these processes that we can more meaningfully begin to advocate change that benefits all citizens. Gender-based violence can be used as an example of how this works. South Africa has some of the most advanced laws/policies for the empowerment and protection of women yet the level of gender-based violence continues to increase. Key policy-makers have responded to international and national pressure to address gender-based violence, but those charged with implementing the policies appear less committed to the exercise. Or perhaps they face serious challenges in performing their duties. One of the policy researcher’s roles should be to examine why these discrepancies occur and suggest ways of redress, using far more complex techniques than before.

The roles and responsibilities of those in positions of power must be vociferously and clearly articulated, i.e. the responsibility to serve rather than the right to rule. It is here that the responsibility of civil society and citizens resides: to continuously ensure that the needs of the people are prioritised. By virtue of the nature of our societies, we need strong, responsive, development-oriented states and we need responsive, engaged citizens. But, more importantly, we need to identify the mechanism and processes through which this vision can materialise.

Challenges to human security in Southern Africa?

The raison d’ être of SADC is the creation of peace and security, and economic and social development through regional integration. Over the past few years, SADC has engaged in an extensive exercise of restructuring and developing new strategic frameworks. SADC moved away from the decentralised sectoral approach to regional integration and established four directorates (clusters), which also indicate SADC’s emphasis, namely, Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR); Social and Human Development and Special Programmes (SHDSP); Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment (TIFI), and Infrastructure and Services (IS). SADC also set up HIV/AIDS, Statistics and Gender Units. Peace and Security were to be dealt with by the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation. The Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISPD) and the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO), which are viewed as complimentary documents, set out the objectives, priority areas and strategies of implementation. When we take into account the policies, principles and programmes of the AU, NEPAD and SADC, we can conclude that the leaders on this continent, and in this sub-region in particular, have gone a long way toward putting in place the normative and policy frameworks for creating peace and development, and ultimately human security.

In some areas, progress has undoubtedly been made. Most of the interstate conflicts have been managed via negotiated settlements; Demobilisation Demilitarisation and Reintegration programmes are in place; trade between countries and the movement of people has increased and so has investment, especially in countries endowed with minerals. There has also been growth in the GDP of countries in the region. However, the inequality between states and within states is widening; poverty is increasing in most countries and food shortages abound; the incidence of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis continues to increase; the widespread use of small arms and organised crime and money laundering persists; refugees and internally displaced people still present major problems; violence against women and children and human trafficking is on the increase; human rights abuses and electoral irregularities are still common, and so the list continues. These are the issues that directly affect human security. One can argue that the time frame between the formulation of the new agenda and the implementation phase has been relatively short, i.e. development is a long-term process. This may be valid, but one should equally ask whether state security is being prioritised at the expense of human security concerns, whether policies are actually being implemented, and to what effect? What kind of policy changes and implementation practices need to be effected? A crucial part of the policy formulation process is the feedback loop. Are effective monitoring and evaluation systems in place in the region?

Elling Tjonneland, Jan Isaksen and Garth le Pere’s study of SADC, for example, indicates that the organisation is institutionally weak (staff shortages, limited capacity) and that the reform process was characterised by a

 Le Pere and Tjonneland also contend that while SIPO

These divergences will inevitably occur. The more important questions are: How are the divergences being managed? How does the process affect the implementation of policies? And how do we move to greater consensus on issues? Zimbabwe and Swaziland should serve as case studies for research of this nature.

Colleen Lowe Morne’s work4 on the representation of women in Southern African governments indicates that while the region have shifted from a 30% quota to gender parity, in some countries the percentage of women in parliament, previously well below the target, has actually declined. Can we blame lack of capacity or resources? Or, does ‘power politics’ still largely override the human security agenda?

The continued insecurity in the region, it could be argued, is due to the lack of follow-through on policies and decisions, the lack of co-ordination and harmonisation, the still largely top-down approach to policy-making and development, and other similar features. If there is a commitment to implementing the visions embodied in the numerous policy documents, we need to find new ways of organisation, collaboration, and interaction. This is because policies will only materialise when there is a critical mass of implementers endowed with, and enthused by, the epistemologies that informed the polices in the first place. The cross-fertilisation between policy researchers (beyond the policy research desks of government departments), and those who make and implement policy should be taking place to a much greater extent. The work produced by policy researchers has limited impact if it does not reach those it is intended to reach. Similarly, policy-making has to be informed by substantive research.

A plethora of data has been generated on almost all the issues relating to human security. Without diminishing its value (since research is conducted for a host of other reasons besides informing polices), we need to ask whether this is the kind of information that policy makers need to inform their decisions. Are we asking the right questions? Are researchers critically analysing policies on the basis of field-work data and making suggestions for reformulation or changes in implementation? If they are, is it distributed in ways that are easily accessible to policy-makers? If, for example, the argument is that a lack of political will or capacity impedes implementation, where are the capacity audits? How does the lack of political will manifest itself, in which areas, and in whom? Where are the comparative studies we can use to draw out lessons learnt, or not learnt? More importantly, how do we begin to pool resources to gain maximum benefit from the expertise that does exist?

Policy research and capacity-building in Southern Africa

Together, the collection of ‘think pieces’ in this monograph, highlight the gaps in research, and where capacity-building initiatives should be concentrated. They span a number of thematic issues, namely, re-thinking human security, gender-based violence, the relationship between development democracy and security, restructuring of the Organ and civil-military relations, and an evaluation of the SADC’s Guidelines and Principles for Elections and Election Observation. The case studies on Botswana, Zimbabwe and Malawi point to the salient issues of democratisation and state-building, corruption, food security, and HIV/AIDS. We hope that this monograph, which should be read in conjunction with the workshop report, initiates a fruitful dialogue between policy-makers, civil society, and researchers on ways to address the growing human security concerns in the region.

Notes