Understanding the local dynamics of security
This extract is from Insight on Conflict, by Rens Willems. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Why should we get local actors involved in conflict and complex security issues? Are they capable of dealing with large-scale insecurity, violent conflicts and oppressive regimes? Is the state not responsible for security, and is it not up to state security actors to provide security? And if these states are not willing or able to provide security, are international organisations such as the UN, NATO and the like not the most capable of dealing with insecurity in states? Based on my recent research in Sudan, Burundi and DR Congo, I would argue that this is not necessarily so.
An important question is: whose security interests do these states and international organisations pursue? When looking closer at what security really means to people, it becomes clear that security is first and foremost something personal. When asked what security is, the answers people give are varied, broad, and diverse. To some it is the absence of violence and war, to others it is being able to travel freely or work on their land, and again others include access to schooling and health provision. In general, people define their security in terms of what academics and practitioners refer to as ‘human security’. And the particular aspects of security they prioritise depend on their personal situation. Security is about what security needs are most vital, and what aspects of their security are threatened by their context. Based on how someone defines security needs and interests, and depending on context and position, people determine (consciously or not) their strategies in pursuit of their various security needs. This process can be referred to as the ‘local dynamics of security’.
A process in which people constantly redefine what security is to them, and how they pursue their security needs, means that these local dynamics of security are characterised by a constant struggle between different perspectives on security. Whose definition gains dominance over others? And based on these various definitions, what strategies in pursuit of their security do people deem appropriate?
Definitions and strategies can conflict, as what is security for one person can mean insecurity to another. Having been in the bush for years, where they were part of a social structure and able to obtain food, ex-combatants often find it difficult to reintegrate economically and socially in the civilian community. The social and economic security offered by the armed group falls away, and in their reintegration process they are expected to find different strategies to fulfil their needs. When they fail to find new (legal) strategies, they may opt to return to an armed group or criminal gang. As an ex-combatant in Burundi explained:
“I was in the first year of primary school when I went into the militia and now going back to school is difficult. They should help me learn a trade. Now I’m in a situation where I sometimes think I’ll start stealing. Maybe find some friends with guns and form a group to steal.”
Such a choice in pursuit of personal security clearly poses a threat to the security of others.
Also, state security actors at the local level are part of these local dynamics of security. In eastern Congo someone explained:
“We are concerned with justice, and the police want money. We have no money, and the police are not interested in justice.”
Police officers, too, define their own security needs, and strategies to pursue these needs. When their salaries are not paid, for example, they might use opportunities available to them to fulfil their security needs and harass the population for money.