Securitization outside of the West: conceptualizing the securitization–neo-patrimonialism nexus in Africa

Abstract

Securitization is arguably the most successful theoretical framework to analyse security beyond the military confines with the nation state as the dominant actor within the international system. Amongst the critical voices, securitization has become the gold standard for analysing emerging challenges, such as migration, terrorism, human security, intra-state and cross-border issues, as well as environmental challenges. Yet, despite its broadening agenda, the framework has also been accused of a Western bias with a Western political context and democratic governance structure at its heart. This article aims to re-conceptualise the framework in a way that suits a non-Western context better, notably by re-conceptualising the securitization-neopatrimonialism nexus in Africa, which gives us significant new insights into non-Western political contexts. It analyses the securitization processes among the political elites in a neo-patrimonial statehood. It further stretches the conceptualisation of securitization into African statehood, characterised by a blurred line between the leader and the state.

Violence, Terrorism, and Identity Politics in Afghanistan: The Securitisation of Higher Education

“…Regarding the contextual relevance and context-specificity of securitisation theory, while securitisation theory has traditionally been geared towards Western contexts and practices for most its life, some recent scholarship has sought to apply it to non-Western contexts (Greenwood 2013;Wilkinson 2007;Ezeokafor and Kaunert 2018). Greenwood (2013) has applied securitisation theory to the case of Egypt in the light of the Arab Spring and the broader Middle Eastern context, when the entire Egyptian security sector was implicated and drawn into dealing with a range of security challenges, including social unrest, religious extremism, and economic disruption.…”

“…She further argues that if the Copenhagen School's theoretical framework is to be considered suitable for universal application, future theoretical developments must explicitly address the theoretical shortcomings and empirical limitations of the framework. Ezeokafor and Kaunert (2018) have attempted to reconceptualise the securitisation-neopatrimonialism nexus in Africa to develop new insights into non-Western political contexts. The framework is used to analyse the securitisation processes among the political elites in a neopatrimonial statehood, stretching the conceptualisation of securitisation into African statehood, characterised by a blurred line between the leader and the state.…”

“…These processes and institutions, including higher education, would be perceived as central threat factors for the elites by empowering the marginalised groups to challenge and, at times, even strive by undermining the monopoly of state power and resources by the elites. In non-Western contexts, Ezeokafor and Kaunert (2018) have shown that political elites can monopolise both the tangible and intangible resources of the state to maintain their hold on power and define the security pattern of their individual countries: who frames the threats and to what extent does the specific character of the state play a role in securitisation process outside the West? Ezeokafor and Kaunert (2018) have demonstrated that, in the African context, the influence of neopatrimonialism is significant on the whole workings of the state and, thus, securitisation processes.…”

“…In non-Western contexts, Ezeokafor and Kaunert (2018) have shown that political elites can monopolise both the tangible and intangible resources of the state to maintain their hold on power and define the security pattern of their individual countries: who frames the threats and to what extent does the specific character of the state play a role in securitisation process outside the West? Ezeokafor and Kaunert (2018) have demonstrated that, in the African context, the influence of neopatrimonialism is significant on the whole workings of the state and, thus, securitisation processes. Here, the nature of the patron-client system in a country is necessary to understand the behaviour and activities of members of the political class and warlords.…”