| Summary: | Within the repertoire of international stabilization interventions, security sector reform (SSR) and other conventional efforts to strengthen security and governance institutions remain central. There is increasing recognition that the policies and practices operating under the rubric of SSR are blind to the empirical reality of 'security pluralism' in most stabilization contexts. In these contexts, both security providers directly authorized by the state (police, army) and a multitude of other coercive actors engage in producing and reproducing order, and enjoy varying degrees of public authority and legitimacy. Recognizing this, research was undertaken in three cities (Beirut, Nairobi, and Tunis) to discern the conditions enabling various security providers to forge constructive relations with local populations and governance actors. Drawing on insights generated by these case studies, this article problematizes conventional state-centric approaches and argues for a bold reimagining of SSR. It makes the case for an SSR approach that prioritizes promoting the accountability and responsiveness of all security providers, integrating efforts to strengthen the social determinants of security, and enabling a phased transition from relational to rules-based systems of security provision and governance.
|
|---|
