Introduction

The ‘security-development nexus’ enjoys many guises. Perhaps most frequently, policy makers proffer the ‘nexus’ as description of, and solution to, the pressing and interrelated problems commonly understood to belong under the rubrics of security and development. References to the ‘nexus’ therefore often appear in the form of apparently self-evident approaches for addressing or treating extremely complex issues (such as, for example, the connections between poverty, armed conflict and sexual and genderbased violence). These approaches are usually painted in broad sweeping brushstrokes and receive little further explanation or justification of what is meant by security-development.

Introduction

Following a global flurry of ‘new wars’ and ‘new conflicts’ in the post–Cold War era (Kaldor 2007; Keen 2008), a lot of rethinking has been done (and certainly will be done) on the causes of violent conflict in the global system. After a decade dominated by, inter alia, ‘9/11’, the unstable and violent African development context and the relatively sustainable peace (and very successful development) in East Asia, reflections on the relations between development and security (and vice versa) became unavoidable. In policy documents (e.g., UN 2004; OECD 2007; DFID 2005; European Council 2003, 2008; UNDP 2005), as well as in academic circles (Buur, Jensen and Stepputat 2007; Chandler 2007, 2008; Duffield 2001, 2007; Paris and Sisk 2007), the ‘development-security nexus’ was coined as a concept and emerged as a hotly contested topic. Unsurprisingly, the policy world was jumping to ‘new solutions’, with reductionist conclusions, whereas research remained more sceptical. For instance, irrespective of whether we listen to the ‘new’ United States foreign policy articulated by Colin Powell or by General Petraeus, to the secretary-general of the United Nations and to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty on ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (UN 2009; ICISS 2001), or the European Union's ‘European Security Strategy’ (European Council 2008), the attention is increasingly on how conflicts of various sorts can be prevented through greater focus on ‘development’. The nexus became a commodity over which intellectual ownership was as unclear as important.

Introduction and Context

In 1974, starting with the arrival of democracy in Portugal, more than 60 countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa have made transitions from authoritarianism to some form of democracy. Democracy has now become the dominant form of government in the world. Its appeal and popularity is more widespread than ever before. Many political struggles are increasingly being fought in different parts of the world in the name of democracy. The democratic development in many of these newly democratic countries has often been sluggish, turbulent and marked by regular reversals. Though performance of many of these democracies continues to be disappointing, the cases of complete reversal from democracy to authoritarian rule are very few. In the last century, the per cent of global population living in democratic countries has increased from 12 per cent in 1900 to 63 per cent in 2000. A near consensus has now been achieved among decision-makers and academics alike on the virtues of democracy. Besides freedom and prosperity, successful democratization is argued to bring peace and security to unstable regions of the world.

This global trend relates mainly to developments within individual countries or within a number of countries, i.e., the internal or domestic developments. If ‘democracy’ is interpreted as a particular system of governance, this approach may be adequate.