Peacebuilding, Human Security and Democratization

Jim Whitman

Peacebuilding, human security and democracy are meaningful abstractions, not programmatic concepts. This is abundantly clear in sites violent conflict and their aftermath, where human insecurity is deeply impacted and it becomes extremely difficult to untangle, prioritise and address them. The competing and sometimes conflicting demands of securing and maintaining public order; providing basic social services; and establishing or re-establishing at least a minimal range of legitimate and effective governance structures are common to many peacebuilding initiatives. The problems are not merely practical - one of endless variations on the themes above - but also conceptual.

The article begins by examining a further abstraction: our concern with human security in post-conflict situations, set against the full span of human insecurity, much of it in 'peaceful' settings. In common with their actions and omissions in respect of much of the developing world, those states sufficiently wealthy and powerful to act in third party peacebuilding roles do so on the basis of their interests. This does not preclude genuine humanitarian concern in specific cases, but states are not altruistic; indeed, it takes a great deal of concerted political and economic activity to sustain a grossly inequitable world to the benefit of the wealthy minority. War-torn countries - and particularly those without legitimate or viable political authority - are, at least in prospect, uniquely open to re-ordering in accordance with interests determined at some remove. And our allegiance to humanitarian and democratic principles in such cases can be nominal, cosmetic or even at odds with the long-term human security of those whom we are pledged to assist.

In this article, the concentration is on democrtatization and, after the introductory material, it will comprise three sections.

The first section will examine the range of conceptual problems that attend nearly all post-conflict democratization: the definitional/functional parameters of what counts as a legitimate, democratic government; whether democracy is best conceived as a goal or as a means of peacebuilding; and how democratization can or should be related to conflict resolution.

The second section examines the problems and dilemmas that attend the democratization process. A number of these issues are nearly ubiquitous - for example, whether party political campaigning has the effect of hardening antagonistic identities and allegiances. But others are also related to the nature and degree of the commitment of the peacebuilders themselves: for example, the organisation of democratic elections in the absence of a political culture sufficient to sustain a government so elected; and the idea/ideal of 'free market democracies.'

The third section asks whether democratization strategies should be considered a necessary or early part of peacebuilding with respect to its larger aim - human security. The article concludes with a sceptical assessment of the 'rush to democracy' in post-conflict societies and considers the prospects for the admittedly difficult alternatives when set against the limited and often highly conditional commitment of third party states; the prioritisation of strategic goals over human needs; and most recently - and worryingly - the sidelining of the United Nations.