Securitising Insecurity? A Security-Development Nexus Reader
MetadataShow full item record
The argument that securitisation pertains to existential invocations of security is not new. Securitisation is seen and experienced as the capacity for undemocratic norms. Securitisation of human insecurity, while abstract, is relevant to ponder with this consideration at heart. There is a normative ambition to both the dual and triple nexus approaches. However, they perform broad-stroked world disclosing acts, helping to discern their securitising efforts. In turn, decoupling’ politics from rules and realities allows for security’s ‘gaming’ to cater to specific audiences. In recent years, the concept of the security-development has undergone a reconceptualisation along these lines. What remains unfaltering is the presupposition of an ‘answerability’ in the form of a dynamic between the ‘securitiser’ and ‘securitised’. The dynamic of the securitisation of development is shown by departures and perceptions. The prioritisation of issues leads to politicisation, and the prioritisation of already politicised issues towards the securitisation of development efforts. Nevertheless, it is still best to avoid terming the nexus a securitising of insecurity, as it will have to prove this in substance for better or worse.