| dc.description.abstract | The need for security cannot be gainsaid. This is because its presence or absence determines whether hwnan goals will be achieved. Security impacts on development, wellbeing and dignity of hwnan beings. Indeed, where it is absent, lawless and anarchy inevitably follow and become enduring. Hence, the main goal for state should be to provide security. However, to achieve this noble goal, the framework of analysis used is critical in drawing attention to threats to security and how they can be dealt with.
This study has focussed on statecentric approach and its inadequacies especially when dealing with the security environment prevalent in Africa. To do so, it has used Kenya - a state which has remained the most stable in Africa as a case study. The choice of Kenya is that since it has fared better than other states in Africa, findings generated can be replicated elsewhere. The study is based on a dual-understanding of security. It has argued that both hwnan and state security are equally important and legitimate concerns. However, when one uses state-centric paradigm, state are treated as the only referent of security and such security is viewed from an external and militarised perspective. Such premises as evidenced by this study do not capture the realities of security in states such as Kenya where threats are primarily internal and nonmilitarised.
On the basis of this argument, the study concludes that there is a need for methodological and epistemological pluralism. This way, African states can go relativist and develop security frameworks based on practical evidence, rather than being straight-jacketed in state-centric orthodoxy. Ultimately, the goal is to address security threats as identified by referent objects not fidelity to a specific security paradigm. | en_US |
