Page 16 - Empowerment and Protection - Conclusions Chapter

process, strengthen civil society, and highlight the interdependency of transnational threats and local security.13
In spite of the challenges it faces, the New Deal
is an example of the kind of unifying framework that a human security approach could provide in designing integrated approaches to development and peace. It has catalysed the formation of broad civil society coalitions spanning human rights, natural resources management, women’s rights, poverty reduction and others. It has facilitated new collaboration by actors across the development
and governance spectrum. The New Deal creates
a platform for government, civil society, and donors to identify root causes of conlict and strategies for addressing them. As such, it is one example of the way human security can work
at the global level to support conlict resolution efforts. In global conversations on the post-2015 development framework that will replace the Millennium Development Goals, many civil society organisations are advocating for the inclusion of peacebuilding and statebuilding goals like those found in the New Deal.14
Challenges and unintended consequences
As it democratises security, human security brings with it the challenge of addressing subjective and conlicting security needs and perceptions. Security is no longer solely deined by state actors, but with the input of people from different social groups with different and sometimes competing needs and interests. Multi- stakeholder dialogue processes are necessary
to mediate these myriad interests and develop understanding and consensus on solutions to security problems. Human security brings the challenge of integrating and addressing the needs and sometimes conlicting perspectives of groups in society. As the Mexico and Philippines case studies demonstrate, social polarisation can be reconciled through structured multi-stakeholder dialogues over time, and can give direction to government policy. Such processes are complex and challenging to initiate and facilitate, and require long-term engagement. Human security approaches should give greater support to civil society, the state, and international actors in developing the political will and capacity to organize ongoing, inclusive dialogue processes.
The subjective and psychological dimensions of individual security are also vulnerable to inluence
or manipulation by outside forces. In many contexts, political leaders may target outside groups as security threats and mobilise citizens in perceived self-defence or retaliation. To avoid the manipulation of subjective experiences of security, particularly the phenomena of scapegoating and xenophobia, that can provide simplistic understanding of the sources of insecurity, it is important to emphasise the preventive, multidimensional aspect of human security, as well
as uphold the principle of complementarity with the rule of law.
Security is no longer solely deined by state actors,
but with the input of people from different social groups with different and sometimes competing needs and interests.
Expanding the deinition of ‘security’ has potential drawbacks as well. There is a danger that rather than humanising security, human security can inadvertently support policies that ‘securitise’ development as has been observed in such contexts as Afghanistan, where development projects have been undertaken by the military as a means to win military objectives. Analysis of such an approach
in Afghanistan has found that these development projects often fail to deliver economic or social beneit for local communities, and diminish rather than contribute to security because they feed corruption and do not address the political drivers of conlict.15 While it is important to draw the conceptual link between development and security, there must also be the awareness among proponents in the human security community that ‘security’ is often equated with militarised approaches in policy communities.
121