Liberal Peace Intervention in the Central African Republic

Limitations and Reworking a “Hybrid” Order

Bibliographic Data

ID12976299
AuthorsBenjamin Maiangwa (0000-0001-6002-4184, University of Manitoba, corresponding author), Muhammad Dan Suleiman (0000-0002-7664-844X, The University of Western Australia)
Year2016
Volume10
Issue1
Pages1-24
Publication date2016-12-09
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAfrican Security (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1939-2206 • E-ISSN: 1939-2214
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/19392206.2016.1270138
OpenAlexW2563428749
LanguageEN
Citations received2

This article uses Roger Mac Ginty’s four-part model of hybridity as a conceptual paradigm to reconsider the relative failure of the liberal peace intervention as a model of building peace in the Central African Republic. The article argues that the limited success of the liberal peace intervention in the Central African Republic is due to its strict adherence to internationalist, top-down, and exclusionary approaches. This, the article argues, eventually obscures local agency, reduces local stakeholder actors to irrelevance, and derails any prospect of ensuring cross-community reconciliation programs. Thus, we conclude that a more inclusive approach, involving participatory, locally engineered, and hybridized LPI—which enforces and brings in the utility of local actors, resources and practices—would be a more effective way of sidestepping the defective trappings of fundamentally “foreign” interventionist paradigms in the Central African Republic

Agency (philosophy · Citizen journalism · Economics · Epistemology · Hybridity · Intervention (counseling · Law and economics · Order (exchange · Peacebuilding · Political economy · Political science · Social science · Sociology · The Republic · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security · Political Conflict and Governance · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub