paper281-40d28d0b5e8dbcf5.pdf

This research paper by Lauren Hutton, published by the Institute for Security Studies in February 2015, interrogates the continued relevance of peacebuilding within external interventions in Africa. The author argues that current peacebuilding efforts are often limited because they fail to address the radical restructuring of political and economic power, instead reinforcing existing inequalities and enabling autocratic governance through the building of state institutions that can be used for predation and control.

• The author argues that peacebuilding is of limited utility in Africa if it does not address the radical restructuring of political and economic power, specifically the ability of individuals to exercise their rights. The paper suggests that current interventions often fail to engage with the 'harbingers of violence,' which include inequality and patronage-based political systems that translate localised grievances into violence.
• There is a trend in Africa toward increased political violence and a shift away from the non-violent management of competition. The author notes that civil wars are being eclipsed by elite-sponsored militia activity intended to shape the existing political system rather than overthrow national regimes.
• External interventions often partner with autocratic regimes because such governments are capable of rational, technocratic central planning and can implement programming to control their populations. The author lists Ethiopia, the DRC, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Egypt as examples of international partners chosen for these reasons rather than for their rights-based approaches.
• The paper contends that peacebuilding efforts focused on building state institutions can inadvertently provide space for illiberal practices. Coercive powers built with international support may be turned against citizens or used for state predation, as seen in Egypt, the DRC, and Somalia.
• The author critiques the 'liberal peace paradigm,' arguing that the current global order is hypocritical because it justifies violence against individuals to serve collective ends and reinforces inequalities. True liberal politics would require the primacy of the individual, sovereign equality, and restraint in the international system.
• The paper argues that supporting civil society and decentralisation in many African contexts is often ineffective because these structures are easily subverted by existing patronage networks. Civil society organisations often act as links between elites and society rather than as a counterbalance to state power.
• The author concludes that peacebuilding will remain irrelevant until there are institutions that protect the rights of the politically and economically weak equally to those of the powerful. Without a commitment to structural change and individual rights, interventions may simply reinforce the inequalities that cause conflict.

APA

Institute for Security Studies (n.d.). paper281-40d28d0b5e8dbcf5.pdf. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper281.pdf

Chicago

Institute for Security Studies. paper281-40d28d0b5e8dbcf5.pdf. n.d. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper281.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Institute for Security Studies |title=paper281-40d28d0b5e8dbcf5.pdf |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper281.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{instituteforsecuritystudiesndpaper28140d28d0b5e8dbcf5pdf, author = {{Institute for Security Studies}}, title = {{paper281-40d28d0b5e8dbcf5.pdf}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper281.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }