This article explores the experiences of community-level actors in the pursuit of greater human security in their communities. Utilizing a conceptual framework based on the capability approach, human security, and securitization theory it considers local actor perceptions of security and the strategies used to achieve their goals. It presents and discusses strategies employed by two distinct actors—a local non-governmental organization and an independent group of community dwellers—in their attempts to achieve security functionings. The results of this qualitative study suggest that while community-level actors view themselves as being empowered as agents in achieving certain human security functionings, the ability of local actors to achieve higher-level functionings is dependent on their recognition as legitimate securitizing agents by more powerful actors and potential partner groups.
One of the inherent realities in the human security paradigm—the idea that security's chief focus is the vulnerabilities of individuals—is that those most acutely aware of insecurities are often the furthest removed from the resources needed to address them. In the face of scarcity, local actors may seek external resources. However, finding support or capital from an external source has its own set of challenges. Resources earmarked for local-scale projects are limited, and funding may come laden with obligations tied to other interests. Furthermore, international or state actors can influence how security and development agendas are implemented in favour of their own interests. As a result, much of the discourse, policy, and practices can become disconnected from the people in need. As Liotta and Owen describe it, “idealism thus becomes enmeshed in realism; actions taken on behalf of the powerless are determined only by the powerful” [
This article presents and reflects on the perspectives of community-level actors regarding their role in improving security conditions in their communities. Using a conceptual framework based on the capability approach, human security, and securitization, it explores the question of how local actors engage in security-making, apply strategies, and leverage agency to achieve their human security goals. More specifically, it presents and discusses strategies employed by two distinct actors—a local non-governmental organization and an independent group of community dwellers—to construct and achieve valued security functionings. This qualitative study demonstrates that community-level actors view themselves as agents in achieving human security functionings, despite recognizing their own limitations in achieving higher-level functionings independently. Additionally, it shows that expanding human security capabilities can depend on recognition as legitimate securitizing agents by other actors and partner groups. The first two sections of this paper present the methodological and theoretical components of the study. Later sections provide empirical evidence of these strategies and processes from local community-level actors in the research area, and discuss the implications for securitization theory in regards to human security—specifically, whether a bottom-up form of securitization can be applied to analyze local actor security dynamics. In doing so, this paper argues that more attention is needed to analyzing security dynamics at the grassroots level, in particular, the role of local actors in sculpting security values.
The study was developed and carried out between September 2012 and December of 2013. It employed a qualitative case study approach, organized into
In September and October of 2013, the
The
|
|
|
|
1 - Mike | Lecturer (political science) | x | YCWL |
2 - Tim | Student (geology) | x | YCWL |
3 - Jack | Volunteer. Labourer | x | YCWL |
4 - Victor | NGO (healthcare) | ||
5 - Eric | Student. Tutorer | x | Eric's Group |
6 - James | Volunteer | x | YCWL |
7 - Omar | Unemployed | x | YCWL |
8 - Gerry | NGO (refugees) | ||
9 - Nancy | NGO (armed violence). Music promoter | ||
10 - Ivan | Student (geology) | x | YCWL |
11 - Max | Volunteer. Basketball Coach | x | YCWL |
12 - Jake | NGO (peacebuilding) | x | |
13 - Fred | Graduate (business). Merchant | x | |
14 - Steve | Graduate (business). Merchant | x | |
15 - Arnold | NGO (development). Police | x | YCWL |
16 - Luke | NGO (crime & violence). Training | x | YCWL |
17 - Mark | Media Practitioner. Previous NGO work | x | YCWL |
18 - Joe | Security professional. Former police | x | |
20 - Zack | NGO (Crime) | x | YCWL |
21 – Zuo Taylor | YCWL Leader | x | |
22 – Otto 1 | Unknown | x | Eric's Group |
23 – John 1 | Government (refugee related) | x | Eric's Group |
a Denotes informants who participated in group interviews only |
|
|
|
One-on-one interviews | n = 21 | Some individuals also took part in group interviews |
Group interviews | n = 4 | Occurred opportunistically |
Youth Crime Watch Liberia meetings | n = 10 | |
Inter-organizational meeting observations | n = 4 | UNICEF (1), UNDP (1), Early Warning Early Response Working Group (1), Ushahidi Liberia (1) |
In approaching this research a conceptual framework was developed to encapsulate issues of security values, agency, and actor relations. It incorporates three key ideas into its analytical perspective: human security gives us a flexible and inclusive notion of threats and insecurities; the capability approach provides an understanding of values, agency, and a normative reference point; and, securitization gives us an analytical starting point for understanding how local actors construct and pursue valued security issues.
Exploring the role of local actors in the pursuit of security requires understanding how security
Securitization describes the process in which security threats are socially constructed through speech acts. The units involved in this process are
Framing this process as interplay between claim-making actors and claim-interpreting audiences fundamentally alters the arena in which security notions are determined. Williams describes how “not only is the realm of possible threats enlarged, but the actors or objects that are threatened…can be extended to include actors and objects well beyond the military security of the territorial state” [
Securitizing actors require social or political legitimacy to have their claims accepted. Furthermore, claims need to have a degree of resonance with the values of their audience [
Audience receptivity and the legitimacy of the response is a key aspect of securitization. Not only are socially derived norms, experiences, and values relevant to what is viewed as a potential insecurity, they also influence the legitimacy of claims on what actions can be reasonably taken in response [
While securitization is largely about convincing an audience to break free of normal politics, the process is also intersubjective, having elements of social negotiation [
Understanding the role of local actors in the pursuit of security necessitates adopting a concept of security that is relevant for them. The reality for many people is that traditional notions of state-based security have limited bearing on their daily lives. Moreover, through issues like misgovernance, the state has been recognized as a source of insecurity itself [
The association between security and underdevelopment was largely popularized by the 1994 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Report [
Unfortunately, it is a conceptual and logistical challenge to address the diverse security needs of individuals and groups. Human security acknowledges insecurities as being highly contextualized. Not only is it difficult to identify specific threats to individual wellbeing, but it is difficult to codify them in a way that is conducive to policy development and analysis. The UNDP suggested seven categories of security threats as potentially destabilizing: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security [
Security expands beyond survival and recognizes the need to live a life that individuals have cause to value. This reformulation creates a more manageable conceptual paradigm, but it offers little to help delineate units of analysis or understand how individuals determine priorities and appraise security needs. Freedom from fear and want may capture the fundamental imagery, but does little to provide a blueprint for policy, practice, and analysis. The non-specificity of the core requirements of human security is at the heart of much of the critique of the concept [
The capability approach is a normative evaluative framework focused on the ability of individuals to achieve the things they value through expanding real freedoms and opportunities. The fundamental units of this approach are
Generally, the capability approach is not conventionally folded into discussions of human security except for when one is clarifying the distinction between human development and human security [
The connection between values, agency, and security-making is at the heart of this research and is articulated by the CHS, in that “human security must also aim at developing the capabilities of individuals and communities to make informed choices and to act on behalf of causes and interests in many spheres of life” [
The question is how to identify the functionings that are valued by local level actors? Several authors have attempted to codify universal capabilities lists or sets to apply as a supplement to Sen's framework [
Externally creating lists of capabilities precludes participation and thereby undermines local values. To understand how local values manifest, it is essential to look for security needs expressed and pursued by local actors themselves. Making a security claim can be interpreted as an expression of value— a declaration that a particular functioning is needed to assure a security goal. The referent object represents a valued security functioning, or some combination of doings or beings that if not achieved will result in insecurity.
Not all security functionings will be the subject of a security claim. Social and political contexts influence which values are likely to be presented, and claims might not represent the most critical security needs. Social structures and power disparity will inevitably influence the values that are expressed within social groups [
The results of this study will be presented in two parts. First, we present data relating to understandings of insecurities in communities and perspectives on actor agency in the pursuit of improved human security. This provides us with insight into how local individuals identify valued security functionings and reflect upon their own agency in achieving them. Second, we present two sample cases in which local actors adopted strategies to achieve their security goals. This section digs deeper into the specific strategies through which local actors attempt to achieve their valued security functionings. These parallel but differently successful strategies show that not all local actors have the same range of capabilities in terms of achieving their security goals.
As this research sought to understand local actors as security agents, a key consideration is how informants views their notion of a secure life, their capacity to identify insecurities in their communities, and their ideas about the responsibility and power to pursue security goals. The aim of this line of investigation is to uncover the existence of locally valued security functionings and the informants' perceived level of agency in achieving those goals.
In regards to the informants' ideas on important security functionings, views were broad but largely consistent with the idea of human security. Some respondents had a fairly simple conception of security. For Jack, “…security means protection. Security means to have a bed peace, that when you are sleeping, when you have security in your environment. When you have security, you can sleep well” [
When asked about specific insecurities they felt needed to be addressed, responses were varied. The most common concern was criminal activity, however, Fred, Eric, and Max saw it as being connected to issues of poor infrastructure, unemployment, and a failure to meet basic needs. [
The fence surrounding Mark's home was used as a dumping area in the community for refuse—or “dirt” in the colloquial Liberian. Sanitation and refuse management as a health threat was well recognized by informants.
Additionally, food security was mentioned by Max, Jack, and Steven as being an ongoing concern [
Informants had mixed responses when asked about how to address insecurities and who was responsible for improving security conditions. Informants recognized the need for multi-level approaches to addressing insecurities, but responses varied based on the type of insecurity. On the issue of economic security, informants pointed vaguely towards the government. Eric felt that the government needed “…to put some measure into place” for encouraging job creation.[
Safety and crime elicited a starkly divided response. Eric, John, and Omar felt that neighbourhood watch or vigilante groups were a major source of security [
When discussing how cooperative efforts worked in reality, Arnold, Luke, and Max took issue with some NGOs' approaches [
Lack of local participation was viewed as an impediment to ownership. Luke felt that NGO consultation with chiefs did not guarantee the respecting of local values or local involvement. Jack and James felt that local chiefs had an important role in conveying the needs of the community to higher-level actors.[
If taken at face value, these responses suggest informants felt they lacked agency in dealing with insecurities, however, when probed on the topic informants emphasized the importance of local actors. Otto, a particularly strong supporter of controversial vigilante groups, attested to this saying that “security is actually everybody's problem. It is not an individual problem. When it is at the door of one individual it is good that every other person go to help solve that problem” [
This type of mixed approach was also advocated by Jack, who described the roots of security within communities as follows:
Mark had a democratic perspective, emphasizing the importance in local people speaking out for their values:
The diversity of responses regarding strategies for achieving security functionings and working within the social and political structure highlights a broad understanding of how local agency can be applied. Informants had clear concerns regarding insecurities, types of preferred responses, and strategies on how they would address them. What emerges from this threefold: firstly, local actors have defined values in regards to security; secondly, local actors have priorities and preferences relating to the solutions to insecurities; and thirdly, local actors have a strong concept of their own agency and strategies for achieving their valued security functionings. We can then say that interviewees have a strong sense of which security functionings they value, and at least some notions of how they would prefer to see them addressed. In the next sections we will explore the reality of how some local actors attempt to achieve security functionings. In doing so we will see the challenges for local actor efforts to move beyond valued functionings into the realm of real capabilities.
The first case for discussion in this study is that of a locally operating NGO called Youth Crime Watch of Liberia (YCWL). The organization was founded by a group of community dwellers who recognized that crime and a lack of youth engagement were a persistent problem in their community. Young people were regularly exposed to drugs, alcohol, and were at risk for recruitment into criminal gangs. The focus has evolved over time, moving beyond crime reduction into issues of youth employment, gender-based violence, amongst others [
In the first year of operation, YCWL pursued accreditation from the Ministry of Planning and Economics Affairs and Ministry of Youth and Sports, and also sought membership with the Federation of Liberian Youth [
Following accreditation, YCWL expanded to different educational institutions. During this time YCWL recognized that gender issues needed to be a priority, in particular, gender-based violence. YCWL sought support from UNMIL to plan a rally against gender based violence as a way of “buttressing National Government and women organizations who have continued to struggle for rape prevention, education and public awareness” [
Gender issues have continued to be a theme for the organization. By 2010 YCWL resolved that the best way to improve security for women was through local empowerment and education opportunities for women and girls [
At of the end of the field phase of this research, YCWL had yet to officially open and commence programming at the Empowerment Center. The GGP grant contained the restriction that it could only be used to finance the construction and outfitting of the center with basic equipment [
YCWL has been effective at communicating, pursuing, and achieving security functionings that they value. Their ability to build networks with other local, national, and international level actors has enabled them to act as a bridge between community dwellers and other actors. Having roots in both the local community and connections to international agencies has put pressure on the small group to be accountable and transparent. Future challenges for the organization include gender inclusiveness in decision making, and staying transparent and accountable. Furthermore, finding stable funding for programming at their new center is certain to come with new donor pressures. YCWL does not yet have the ability to operate completely independently to pursue all the security functionings that they value. Accessing resources remains dependent on appeals to external actors. Despite this, it can be said that the strategies they have applied to pursue security functionings have been effective, clearly indicating the existence of security capabilities.
While YCWL was able to leverage their social resources to build a reputation and establish themselves as a legitimate security actor in their community, not all actors have the capacity to implement the same strategies. Others lack the networks or social capital required to generate legitimacy. One of the informants for this project, Eric, has struggled to overcome these challenges in his attempts to build a school in his remote community. His story is an example of how some local actors can act as security agents but still be frustrated by the self-interest of others.
The conflict in Liberia separated Eric from his family and he ended up as a refugee in Ghana.[
After returning to Liberia and reuniting his displaced and scattered family, Eric endeavoured to help meet the needs for primary education in his community. His experience in the refugee camps familiarized him with the problems caused by a lack of education and schools, and he did not want the same to occur in his new community:
The lack of educational opportunities was seen as a burden on the community and the government. Moreover, the long distance between the community and the local school created fears that the children would be exposed to dangers on their commute. Eric, his friends, and his family decided that they needed to construct an elementary school in their community. The first step in the process was to rally local support, and this would become their first roadblock.
Eric and his colleagues explained that mustering support from their community was not easy. While discussing the school project in a local cafe, Otto explained that “…before you can venture into a community to carry out the projects, you need to synthesize mission, you need to synthesize people. If you just go there and want to begin the project immediately it might somehow be difficult” [
Community projects could not be effectively implemented without the support of the community as a whole. This was evident when the group met resistance raising support to build the school. The group decided that maybe the best way to earn support was to focus on a specific audience within the community:
While initially resistant to the idea, the men of the community recognized the values and concerns of their wives and were convinced for the need for a local school. For Eric and Otto, this was a key step and they quickly rallied support from other community members who agreed to donate land and to help with the construction of the school [
The next barrier was finding a donor. Eric reached out to his international contacts from his time teaching in Ghana. One of his former co-workers put Eric in touch with a group in Israel willing to donate. However, the group had expressed concerns about the legitimacy of the project and asked for documentation (building plans, cost estimates, etc.) and for an inspection of the proposed location [
While the NGO reluctance to trust local level actors with funds was frustrating, it was also understandable by the group. Eric felt that while it restricted local opportunities to freely pursue goals, it was reasonable because some local actors' motives could be dishonest. Eric and Otto prepared the documents while waiting for an inspector to arrive from Accra to compile his report on the site.
Once the inspector arrived, Eric's family hosted him for several days, explaining the project and showing him around the community. Afterwards, Eric was told to wait for a response from the donors based on the report [
The group drafted a new proposal based on the soap-making initiative suggested by the donors and approached his community again. The new suggestion was met with disappointment. The community had expectations for support in building a school and the news of that evaporating broke their trust in Eric:
In the end, the cancellation of the school project was a loss of face for Eric in the eyes of his community. Having spent his own time and money on the project, including long taxi rides to the nearest internet café, money spent developing project proposals, and hosting the Ghanaian inspector, Eric felt let down by the experience. Exploitation of the situation by the inspector and the altering of project plans to suit the donor group severely undermined Eric's credibility within his community. Despite this, his group remained hopeful that they could support the education of children in his village by offering tutoring at his home and continuing to seek funds to build a school. This was not the preferred functioning, but the only one within their capabilities.
In regards to community understandings of security, it is clear that most of the informants hold complex notions of security that included both individual and social aspects. Informants expressed concerns for security in terms of physical safety, nutrition, unemployment, education, and more. Furthermore, informants acknowledged that insecurities were often interrelated, with issues of criminality and personal safety being connected to problems in the economic or social systems. The ability of the informants to readily identify and discuss human security threats and solutions in their communities illustrates the existence of preferences on human security functionings. In the language of capabilities approach, these types of responses suggest that informants have values in regards to the capabilities needed to feel secure in their lives. These responses suggest that types of security concerns held by community dwellers are well reflected by conventional interpretations of human security. Based on this, it is clear that the human security concept holds relevance and is applicable to the security values and needs of local-level actors in the research area. Whether informants felt they had the real freedom or agency to achieve these human security functionings is another matter.
When interviews explored the role of local actors and communities in addressing and managing insecurities, informants showed similar complex and self-reflective opinions. Informants clearly indicated that in many situations they felt that capabilities existed for implementing certain responses or strategy on their own (e.g. night patrols), in other situations they recognized their limitations (e.g. well-drilling). When it came to discussions of who were the primary actors for achieving security functionings, informants identified a mixed system, where the local communities, the police, NGOs, and government actors all held some responsibility to contribute. Informants stressed the need for local people to be involved in the process of addressing insecurities, citing planning errors and misunderstandings that could have been avoided with the help of local knowledge. These types of responses suggest that informants felt that there is not only a need for community-level actors to be involved in addressing insecurities, but that local actors possessed key knowledge and agency that was often needed to ensure the successful resolution of insecurities. This indicates a mixed level of capabilities in which some human security functionings were considered achievable utilizing local capacity alone, but others required non-local support.
In terms of identifying clear demonstrations of the application of local agency as security actors, the results were less definitive. The cases of YCWL and Eric's group clearly highlight that not all local actors have the same level of capabilities in terms of security. While YCWL represents an example of a successful strategy applied by a local actor, Eric's efforts failed in achieving security functionings. Why did one case succeed and the other fail? Consider the difference in terms of actor characteristics, the responses advocated, and audience receptivity.
YCWL's efforts since its foundation have effectively carved out a position as legitimate and respected speakers for security. The strategies that they have employed have focused on mustering community support and official recognition as a form of legitimacy, and leverage this with international funding agencies. This was a slow but effective process to amplify their social and political capital, gaining recognition as speakers of security regarding community and local level needs. Leveraging this legitimacy, YCWL was able to access the Japanese government's grassroots grant program with a securitizing move around a referent that fell across shared values. Moreover, the fact that the responses advocated by YCWL were tuned to human security needs well recognized by their international audiences was undoubtedly a major factor in their success. The audience-compatible security claims of YCWL in combination with the time spent earning credibility with local community members, national, and international actors undoubtedly helped YCWL secure the resources needed to achieve their desired security functionings.
The strategies applied by Eric's group were focused on using security rhetoric to accomplish their goals and shape public opinion. This strategy was very effective at mustering local support and is essentially a type of bottom-up securitization strategy. Targeting women as an initial audience for security claims, and then leveraging that with local men resulted in special handling at the local level in the form of donated land. Unfortunately, this strategy hit a ceiling when it came to international actors. The reasons for this appear to be two-fold: firstly, the group's lack of legitimacy in that field created a barrier between them and funders; and secondly, the funders - while open to hearing security claims - were not entirely in agreement with the proposed resolution to the security problem. They did not accept the security objectives advocated by Eric as a securitizing agent, instead, the funders advocated for an alternative solution to the one advocated by Eric's group. The free-trade business solution proposed by the funders did not match the values of the community. One can speculate as to whether something like NGO accreditation would have made a difference, but it is clear that the audience failed to resonate with Eric's security claims. Not only was the community unable to address the source of insecurity in their community, but Eric suffered a loss of social capital. Failure to securitize in this situation came at a significant social cost to the securitizing agent.
Even though Eric's claims were relatively non-controversial— bridging themes of education and sexual violence—they failed to resonate strongly with the audience. Given Liberia's post-war, less developed country context it is unlikely that the claims were rejected based on the nature of the threat alone. The key difference between YCWL and Eric's group was in the form of social capital and power they had at their disposal. While the aims of both actors were similar— situated around issues of gender, crime, violence, and education—YCWL was more successful in their strategy. In terms of Balzacq's (2005) criteria [
This research has shown that sufficiently empowered local actors can be effective agents for improving human security conditions in their communities. Local actors are clearly able to put voice to security claims and functionings, however, the ability of local actors to achieve human security functionings that are beyond their normal means are dependent on the ability of to augment their resources through external sources. This requires legitimacy as a speaker of security, and cultivating legitimacy was a key part of the strategies employed in both the cases presented. Unfortunately, as Eric's case illustrates, not all local actors have the social or political capital required to generate legitimacy at higher levels, and thus they may lack capabilities to pursue valued security functionings. Moreover, when bottom-up securitization strategies are applied by local actors, their effectiveness appears to be dependent on the value placed on socio-political factors by audiences, which fell outside of the objective of this research. Understanding how bottom-up securitization strategies work as a means of enhancing capabilities requires a deeper investigation of actor/audience relations and what types of factors influence the receptivity of audiences; however, it is clear that securitization is a strategy that can be applied by local actors to leverage agency. As such, this research suggests two considerations to human security minded actors both in Liberia and abroad: firstly, local actors should evaluate how their legitimacy as speakers of security is interpreted by funding audiences; secondly, funding audiences should consider the ways in which their criteria for legitimate claims may actually worsen local security conditions. Cases such as this highlight the challenges for local actors to achieve their security. More importantly, they illustrate how the capabilities for local actors to achieve security functionings is heavily contingent on the expansion of opportunities for community-level actors to participate in security-making processes.
Recommendations for further research include a fuller exploration of the theoretical basis for bottom-up securitization, a meta-analysis of the cases examining the effectiveness of local actors as securitizing actors, as well as an empirical study of how audiences perceive bottom-up securitizing acts in order to confirm whether audiences perceive local actors as securitizing agents, or at least speakers for security. The question as to which kinds of social and political capital generate the legitimacy in a bottom-up securitizing act is of key interest to this research. Understanding how the audiences of bottom-up security claims interpret legitimacy of both claimants and responses is a key question for future research. If such questions can be answered, both local and non-local actors can potentially improve their ability to ensure the achievement of the most critical and locally valued human security functionings.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by a grant from the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Tromsø, Norway. Additionally the author is formally employed by Nord University, Bodø, Norway.
Despite a slow but steady climb in HDI since 2000, Liberia was ranked 177 out of 188 countries and territories in 2015
Taylor Z. Affiliation. E-mail correspondence
Additionally, Eric provided access to the email correspondence between himself and the group in Israel, including the building plans and cost estimates from local builders.