Confronting the colonial: The (re)production of ‘African’ exceptionalism in critical security and military studies:

TL;DR: The authors argue that the current selective uses of securitization and militarism/militarization in "Africa" scholarship tend to recreate troublesome distinctions between developed and underdeveloped spaces within theory and methodology, and highlight the selective nature of such application and probe into the potential reasons for and effects of this selectiveness.

Abstract: Drawing on postcolonial theory, this article queries into the ways in which the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization are applied to ‘African’ contexts. We highlight the selective nature of such application and probe into the potential reasons for and effects of this selectiveness, focusing on its signifying work. As we argue, the current selective uses of securitization and militarism/militarization in ‘Africa’ scholarship tend to recreate troublesome distinctions between ‘developed’ versus ‘underdeveloped’ spaces within theory and methodology. In particular, they contribute to the reproduction of familiar colonially scripted imagery of a passive and traditional ‘Africa’, ruled by crude force and somehow devoid of ‘liberal’ ideas and modes of governing. Yet we do not suggest simply discarding ‘selectiveness’ or believe that there are any other easy remedies to the tensions between universalism and particularism in theory application. Recognizing the ambivalent workings of colonial discourse, we rather contend that any attempts to trace the colonial into the present use of the concepts of securitization and militarism/militarization need to acknowledge the problematic nature of both discourses of ‘African’ Otherness and those of universalism and sameness.

Summary

Introduction

• To say that theoretical frameworks and concepts need to be adjusted to the context of study is to state the obvious.
• Furthermore, it is warranted, as the theoretical and conceptual choices the authors make not only limit what they see and hear, but (through that) are in themselves constitutive – therefore opening up the risk of perpetuating and reproducing the problematic and ultimately colonially scripted imageries that continue to inform much scholarly work.
• The first part reviews (in brush strokes, given the limited space, and therefore at risk of overgeneralization) how the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization have been applied to ‘African’ contexts in the scholarly literature.
• The authors then explore how to make sense of the selective application and diverging connotations of these two concepts, and venture into a discussion of the signifying effects of that selectiveness.

Securitization and militarism/militarization applied to ‘African’

• The notions of both militarization/militarism and securitization, which have a distinct genesis and evolution, have been applied in various – and shifting– ways to ‘African’ contexts.
• In the following, the authors consider for each term first its general signification, and then its specific application to ‘Africa’.

Militarization/militarism and ‘Africa’

• The term militarism has been defined and conceptualized in various ways (Berghahn, 1981; Stavrianakis and Selby, 2012).
• Central to most definitions of militarism/militarization is the idea of ‘the military’ (either as an institution or a notion) ‘extending into’ supposedly ‘civilian’ spheres and subjectivities (cf. Thee, 1977).
• After a brief trend whereby ‘African’ armies were considered agents of ‘modernization’ (Pye, 1962), ‘African’ militarism/militarization was construed as a opposite to notions of ‘modern’ (read: ‘western’) armies and political orders.
• Another trend that is only weakly visible in ‘Africa’ scholarship is the increasing criticism (evident particularly within geography and gender studies) on efforts to articulate ‘universally valid’ specifications of the contents and forms of militarism/militarization (e.g. Bernazolli and Flint, 2009).

Securitization and ‘Africa’

• Securitization theory, which considers the ways in which phenomena are construed as ‘security issues’, was developed through the work of the Copenhagen School in the 1990s as part of critical security studies.
• Since security studies emerged in the context of IR, critical security studies so far continues to have IR– a discipline where ‘Africa’ has traditionally been marginalized (Dunn and Shaw, 2001) – implicitly or explicitly as a frame of reference (Abrahamsen, 2017).
• Apart from these institutionalized inequalities, a crucial (from the point of departure of this article) reason for the selective application of militarism/militarization and securitization is located in the idea that these concepts, and particularly securitization, are inadequate for application outside of ‘western’ contexts.
• As she argues, scholars outside western Europe (in this case from Turkey) may apply the theory to demonstrate how ‘advanced’ (as in approximating ‘liberal democracies’) their societies are.
• As a corollary, not applying securitization theory, as is the case in relation to ‘African’ actors in ‘Africa’, may feed into assumptions that ‘African’ societies are ‘not advanced enough’ – as the authors will further discuss below.

The signifying effects of selectiveness

• First, whether or not one subscribes to the idea that ‘securitization’ is something that ‘African’ actors engage in themselves (and hence does not pertain only to external interventions), the limited attention to how securitization processes are coproduced by ‘African’ actors somehow imputes to them the classic imagery of ‘African’ passivity (e.g. Mudimbe, 1988; Pieterse, 1995).
• 11) warned that the field risks reproducing Eurocentrism by marking ‘the world’s multitudinous cultures, not positively by what distinguishes them but by a subordinate, retrospective relation to linear, European time’, also known as McClintock (1995.
• As reflected in this citation, reasoning against the adequacy of employing Foucauldian approaches in the study of ‘Africa’ tends to invoke notions of a traditional/non-advanced ‘Africa’ somehow devoid of ‘liberal’ ideas and modes of governing.
• Barkawi highlights here the problematic tendency of securitization theory to uncritically reflect and reproduce the security politics of so-called advanced liberal democracies (see also Bigo, 2002), thus participating in the ‘defensive liberal politics of war by obfuscating the possibility of aggression’ (Barkawi, 2011: 715).

Concluding reflections

• Drawing upon postcolonial theory, this article has analysed how the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization have been applied (and not applied) to ‘African’ contexts, querying into the underlying assumptions about universalism and particularism and probing into the representational work that such applications do.
• Attending to these questions is crucial since the theoretical and conceptual choices the authors make not only limit what they see and hear but are constitutive of their ideas of ‘Africa’ – thereby opening up the risk of reproducing familiar and problematic images inscribed in the colonial library.
• Yet, owing to the contradictory workings of colonial discourses as described at the start of this article, the authors resist the task of arguing in favour or against the application of securitization and militarism/militarization in research on ‘Africa’.
• At the same time, the authors do not call for the development of ‘Africa-specific’ or ‘African derived’ concepts of militarism/militarization or securitization either.
• Accordingly, the authors need to acknowledge and interrogate how their desires, conceptions of the world and interests are unavoidably written into the theoretical and conceptual choices they make –and, crucially, to recognize that these choices are constitutive.

Full text

Confronting the colonial: the (re)production of ‘African’
exceptionalism in critical security and military studies
Article (Accepted Version)
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk
Eriksson Baaz, Maria and Verweijen, Judith (2018) Confronting the colonial: the (re)production of
‘African’ exceptionalism in critical security and military studies. Security Dialogue, 49 (1-2). pp.
57-69. ISSN 0967-0106
This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/79041/
This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the
published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to
consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published
version.
Copyright and reuse:
Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.
Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual
author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material
made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.
Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third
parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic
details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the
content is not changed in any way.

!
1!
!"#$%"#&'#()&*+),"-"#'.-/)&*+)0%+12%"34,&'"#)"$)56$%',.#7)+8,+2&'"#.-'9:)
'#),%'&',.-)9+,4%'&;).#3):'-'&.%;)9&43'+9))
)
Maria%Eriksson%Baaz%&%Judith%Verweijen%
%
Published%in%Security)Dialogue;%Vol%49,%Issue%1-2,%2018%
https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617730975%
%
%
6<9&%.,&)
)
Drawing%on%postcolonial%theory,%this%article%queries%into%the%ways%in%which%the%
concepts%of%militarism/militarization%and%securitization%are%applied%to%‘African’%
contexts.%We%highlight%the%selective%nature%of%such%application%and%probe%into%the%
potential%reasons%for%and%effects%of%this%selectiveness,%focusing%on%its%signifying%work.%
As%we%argue,%the%current%selective%uses%of%securitization%and%militarism/militarization%
in%‘Africa’%scholarship%tend%to%recreate%troublesome%distinctions%between%
‘developed’%versus%‘underdeveloped’%spaces%within%theory%and%methodology.%In%
particular,%they%contribute%to%the%reproduction%of%familiar%colonially%scripted%imagery%
of%a%passive%and%traditional%‘Africa’,%ruled%by%crude%force%and%somehow%devoid%of%
‘liberal’%ideas%and%modes%of%governing.%Yet%we%do%not%suggest%simply%discarding%
‘selectiveness’%or%believe%that%there%are%any%other%easy%remedies%to%the%tensions%
between%universalism%and%particularism%in%theory%application.%Recognizing%the%
ambivalent%workings%of%colonial%discourse,%we%rather%contend%that%any%attempts%to%
trace%the%colonial%into%the%present%use%of%the%concepts%of%securitization%and%
militarism/militarization%need%to%acknowledge%the%problematic%nature%of%both%
discourses%of%‘African’%Otherness%and%those%of%universalism%and%sameness.%
%
Keywords:%securitization;%militarism;%militarization;%Africa;%postcolonialism%
%
%
=#&%"34,&'"#)
%
To%say%th at%theoretical%frameworks%and%concepts%need%to %be%adjusted%to%the%context%
of%study%is%to%state% the%obvious.%The%failure%to% do%so,%a%repeated%feature%in% th e%history%
of% academic% knowledge% production,% opens% the% door% to% ethnocentrism,% particularly%
Euro/US-centrism.% Yet,% as% a% range% of% postcolonial% scholarship% warns,% the% selective%
application%of%theoretical%notions%and%analytical%concepts,%including%context-specific%
adaptations%of%their%signification,%has%inherent%dangers%too.%It%may%lead%for%instance%
to%‘theoretical%and%methodological%discrimination’%(cf.%Eriksson%Baaz%and%Verweijen,%

!
2!
2016)% whereby%particular% contexts% are% implicitly% deemed% ‘too% underdeveloped’% for%
the% application% of% (supposedly)% theoretically% ‘sophisticated’% concepts% that% are%
commonly% used% in% relation% to% (purportedly)% ‘advanced% (postindustrial)% liberal%
democracies’.%Such%selective%application%of%conceptual%toolboxes%inescapably%mirrors%
our% biases% as% scholars% and% our% very% partial% constructions% of% the% world.% When%
addressing%social%phenomena%in%‘the%South’,%but%also,%for%‘Northern’-based%scholars,%
‘at% home’% in% ‘the% North’,% theoretical% and% conceptual% choices% are% often% shaped% by%
colonial% imageries% and% power% relations% (cf.% Bhabha,% 1994;% Mudimbe,% 1988;% 1994;%
Spivak,% 1993).% The% echoes% of% colonialism% are% particularly% strong% in% scholarship% on%
‘Africa’,%which%in%the%colonial%lexicon,%was%construed% as %located%at%the%very%end%of%the%
evolutionary% ladder,% hence% constituting% the% least% ‘developed’% Other% (Childs% and%
Williams,%1997;%Mudimbe,%1988;%1994).%%
%
In%this%article,%we%examine%the%dan gers% and%justifications%of%universal%and%selective%
theory%application%to%‘Africa’,%focusing%on%the%(non-)%application % of%the%con cepts% of%
militarism/militarization%(notions%that,%according%to%different%definitional%traditions,%
have% sometimes% distinct,% sometimes% overlapping% meanings)% and% securitization%
(sometimes%defined%as%partly%overlappi ng%with%militarization,%see%the%Introduction%to%
this% special% issue).% In% what% ways% are% these% concepts% used% and% what% meanings% are%
attached%to%them%in%relation%to%‘African’%contexts?%What%may%such%choices%reflect%in%
terms% of% underlying% assumptions?% In% particular,% what% (signifying)% work% do% these%
concepts% do?% Probing% into% these% questions% is% pertinent% in% the% light% of% the% strong%
Euro/US-centrism% that% continues% to% mark% scholarly% debates% on% securitization% and%
militarism/militarization% (cf.% Barkawi,% 2011;% Barkawi% and% Laffey,% 2006;% Bilgin,% 2011;%
Vuori,%2008;%Wilkinson,% 2007).%Furthermore,%it%is%warranted,%as%the%theoretical%and%
conceptual%choices%we%make%not%only%limit%what%we%see%and%hear,%but%(through%that)%
are%in%themselves%constitutive%–%therefore%opening%up%the%risk%of%perpetuating%and%
reproducing% the% problematic% and% ultimately% colonially% scripted% imageries% that%
continue%to%inform%much%scholarly%work.%%
%
As% we% demonstrate,% the% ways% in% which% militarism/mili tarizatio n% and% securitization%
have% u p% to% now% been% applied% to% ‘African’% contexts% risk% reproducing% familiar% and%
troublesome%imageries%of%‘African’%passivity%and%backwardness.%Yet%this%finding%does%
not%allow%for%a%clear% answer%to%the%question%whether%theoretical%and%methodological%
discrimination% is% indeed% at% work% and% whether% such% discrimin atio n% is% warranted.%
Taking% a% definite% position% on % these% issues,% we% contend,% is% dangerous% given% the%
contradictory% workings% of% the% colonial.% The% colonial% project% was% intrinsically%
characterized% by% the% politics% of% both% universalism% and% thereby% Euro-centrism%
(promoting%and%legitimizing%colonization%through%the%idea%of%Europe%as%the%universal%
norm)% and% particularism,% racism% and% Otherness% (promoting% and% legitimizing%
colonialism%though%the%imagery%of%the%inferior%Other)%(cf.%Bhabha,%1994;%Mudi mbe,%

!
3!
1988;% Spivak,% 1993).% As% argued% by% Bhabha,% colonial% discourse% was% marked% by%
ambivalence,% in% that% colonizers% desired% a% reformed,% recognizable% Other% who% was%%
‘almost% the% same,% but% not% quite’% (1994:% 86).% Therefore,% any% attempt% to% trace% the%
colonial% into% the% present% use% of% the% concepts% of% securitization% and%
militarism/militarization% in% relation% to% ‘Africa’% needs% to% acknowledge% that% both%
discourses% of% ‘African’% Otherness% (uncriticall y% refuting% the% applicability% of% certain%
concepts%to%‘Africa’)%and%discourses%of%sameness%(uncritically%arguing%that%concepts%
and%approaches%originati ng%in%‘the%North’%are%ap pl icab le%everywhere)%are%inherently%
problematic.%%
%%
Why,% then,% do% we% focus% on% ‘Africa’,% ( and% even% on% the% probl ematic% noti on% of % ‘sub-
Saharan%Africa’)?% By% treating% ‘Africa’% as% a% supposedl y% monolithic% whole,% do% we% not%
‘normalize’%the%‘Africa-as-a-country’%discourses%that%much%scholarship%highlighting%its%
diversity% tries% to% deconstruct?% And% does% a% singular% focus% on% ‘Africa’% not% risk%
reproducing% the% very% representations% of% ‘African’% Otherness% and% the% ‘African’%
exceptionalism%that%we%seek%to%problematize?%The%answer%to%the%latter%question%is%
an%unambiguous%yes:%such%a%risk%certainly%exists.%We%believe,%however,%that%this%risk%
is% less% acute% given% that% the% focus% here% is% on% querying% into% (common% academic%
renderings%of)%the%idea)of%‘Africa’%(Appiah,%1993;%Mudimbe,%1988)%rather%than%‘Africa%
itself’.% Our% choice% is% also% partly% grounded% in% postcolonial% s chol arship % that%
demonstrates%that%while%there%were%curious%similarities%in%the%representations%of%all%
colonized% Others% (Loomba,% 1998),% these% representations% were% also% marked% by%
difference% –with% ‘Africa’% often% represented% as% being% at% the% highest% stage% of%
‘primitivism’.%These%differences%have%continued%to%work%in%the%postcolonial,%as%also%
reflected%in%much%‘Africa’%scholarship%(Abrahamsen,%2003;%Childs%and%Williams,%1997;%
Dunn,%2001;%Mudimbe,%1988).%%%%
%
The%rest%of%the%article%proceeds%as%follows.%The%first%part%reviews%(in%brush%strokes,%
given% the% limited% space,% and% therefore% at% risk% of% overgeneralization)% h ow% the%
concepts% of% militarism/militarization% and% securitization% have% been% applied% to%
‘African’%contexts%in%the%scholarly%literature.%We%then%explore%how%to%make%sense%of%
the% selective% application% and% diverging% connotations% of% these% two% concepts,% an d%
venture%into%a%discussion % of%the%signifying%effects%of%that% selectiveness.%We%end%by%
reflecting%on%the%implications%of%our%analysis%for%academic%praxis.%)
)
>+,4%'&'?.&'"#) .#3) :'-'&.%'9:@:'-'&.%'?.&'"#) .22-'+3) &") 56$%',.#7)
,"#&+8&9)
%
The%notions%of%both%militarization/militarism%and%securitization,%which%have%a%distinct%
genesis%and%evolution,%have%been%applied%in%various%–%and%shifting–%ways%to%‘African’%

!
4!
contexts.% In% the% following,% we% consider% for% each% term% f irst% its% general% signifi cation ,%
and%then%its%specific%application%to%‘Africa’.%%
%
Militarization/militarism-and-‘Africa’%-
%
The%term%militarism%has%been%defined%and%conceptualized%in%various%ways%(Berghahn,%
1981;% Stavrianakis% and% Selby,% 2012).% Among% other% conceptualizations,% it% has% been%
regarded% as% a% particular% ideology% (glorifying% war,% force% and% violence),% a% feature% of%
regimes%relating%to%military%buildu ps% (e.g.% increasing%spending%on%the%military)%or%a%
specific%kind%of%civil-military%relations%(Berghahn,%1981;%Stavrian akis%and%Selby,%2012;%
see%also)Eastwood%in%this%issue).%Additionally,%militarism%has%been%approached%as%a%
set%of%discourses%driving%and%resulting%from%‘militarization’,%interpreted%as%a%process%
(Luckham,%1994).%Central%to%most%definitions%of%militarism/militarization%is%the%idea%
of% ‘the% military’% (either% as% an% institution% or% a% notion)% ‘extending% into’% supposedly%
‘civilian’%spheres%and%subjectivities%(cf.%Thee,%1977).%Other%scholars%have%alternatively%
conceptualized% militarism/militarization% as% ‘the% blurring% or% erasure% of% distinctions%
between% ...% military% and% civilian’% (Sjoberg% and% Via,% 2010:% 7).% Whether% regarded% as%
extending%into %or%merging%with%‘the%civilian’,%in%both% cases,%‘the%military’%is%attributed%
essential%characteristics%that%separate%it%from%‘the%civilian’.%As%we%will%outline%below,%
it% is% in% part% the% attrib utio n% of% (seemingly)% universal% significations% to% either% ‘the%
military’%or%‘the%civilian’%that%renders%applications%of%militarism/militarization%across%
contexts%problematic.%%
%
Analysing% studies% on% the% military% and% mili tarism% in% ‘developing% countries’% in% the%
1960s% and% 1970s,% Luckham% observes% th eir% gro unding% in% time-bound% theories% of%
modernization%and%political%development.% Focusing%on%democratization%and% civilian%
control,%the%Euro/US-centrism%of%these%accounts%was%obvious%(Luckham,%1994:%4),%in%
particular% in% relation% to% conceptualizations% of% ‘military% professionalism’% and% ‘civil-
military% relations’% along% Hu nti ngtoni an% (1957)% lines.% % After% a% brief% trend% whereby%
‘African’% armies% were% considered% agents% of% ‘modernization’% (Pye,% 1962),% ‘African’%
militarism/militarization%was%construed%as%a%(deviant)%opposite%to%(idealized)%notions%
of%‘modern’%(read:%‘western’)%armies%and%political%orders.%One%domain%in%which%this%
supposed% d eviance% came% to% the% fore% was% the% pronounced% political% role% of% many%
‘African’% military% establishments,% especially% their% ‘praetorianism’% or% penchant% for%
coup%d’états%(Welch,%1970).%%
%
Some% scholars% located% these% ‘abnormalities’% in% the% very% nature% of% ‘African’% armies%
and% political% orders.% As% Decalo% writes% (1990[1976]:% 6),% ‘Many% African% armies% bear%
little%resemblance%to%the%Western%organizational% p rototype%and% are%instead%a%coterie%
of% distinct% armed% camps% owing% primary% clientelist% allegiances% to% a% handful% of%
mutually%competitive%officers%of%different%ranks.’%%Others,%by%contrast,%read%‘African’%

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

Drawing on postcolonial theory, this article queries into the ways in which the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization are applied to ‘ African ’ contexts. The authors highlight the selective nature of such application and probe into the potential reasons for and effects of this selectiveness, focusing on its signifying work. As the authors argue, the current selective uses of securitization and militarism/militarization in ‘ Africa ’ scholarship tend to recreate troublesome distinctions between ‘ developed ’ versus ‘ underdeveloped ’ spaces within theory and methodology. Recognizing the ambivalent workings of colonial discourse, the authors rather contend that any attempts to trace the colonial into the present use of the concepts of securitization and militarism/militarization need to acknowledge the problematic nature of both discourses of ‘ African ’ Otherness and those of universalism and sameness. Yet the authors do not suggest simply discarding ‘ selectiveness ’ or believe that there are any other easy remedies to the tensions between universalism and particularism in theory application. 

Q2. What was the work of the Copenhagen School in the 1990s?

Securitization theory, which considers the ways in which phenomena are construed as ‘security issues’, was developed through the work of the Copenhagen School in the 1990s as part of critical security studies. 

Q3. What was the privileged outlet for security-centered discourses on ‘Africa’?

A privileged outlet for security-centered discourses on ‘Africa’ was the emerging policy-prescriptive genre of security sector reform – a set of policy interventions that critical scholars associate with the ‘liberal peace’ project (Andersen, 2011). 

Q4. What is the main argument against the application of securitization theory to ‘Africa’?

Through the judgment of particular theoretical tools as ‘inappropriate’ for certain contexts, supposedly modern, liberal (and universal) values such as freedom, humanrights and democracy are portrayed as exclusive property of ‘the West’– as is more explicitly the case with approaches to militarism/militarization in ‘Africa’ that take ‘western’ militaries and political orders as their yardstick. 

Q5. What is the main argument for securitization theory?

He highlights, however, that securitization is based on an ‘illocutionary speech act’ relating to the universal capacity for language, concluding that a more careful elaboration of securitization theory allows it to ‘travel’ to non-democratic contexts, without losing its explanatory value (Vuori, 2008). 

Q6. What is the need to further engage in efforts to ‘think otherwise’?

there is a need to further engage in efforts to ‘think otherwise’ (Spivak, 1993), recognizing that the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization are deeply political conceptual tools, and (like most theory) are shaped by a long history of colonialism and racism. 

Q7. What is the role of the postcolonialist in obscuring the security politics of ‘?

As argued by Appiah (1993: 32) (as well as by many other postcolonial thinkers) this idea must be seen as ‘an outgrowth of European racialism’ – reflecting a politics which simply ‘make[s] real the imaginary identities to which Europe has subjected us’ – thus merely reproducing colonial ideas of ‘African’ homogeneity and Otherness. 

Q8. What was the corollary of the study of militarism?

IR’s focus on military power and violence was largely ‘superseded by the problem of internal lawlessness and anarchy – with the corollary … that the study of militarism [here mostly seen in relation to the international system and states] is also somewhat outdated’. 

Q9. What is the task of the author?

As Spivak (1993: 284) frames it, rather than rejecting the values that are claimed, the task is to ‘engage in a persistent critique of what one cannot not want’. 

Q10. What is the importance of critically reviewing such claims of proprietorship?

Critically reviewing such claims of proprietorship, as well as the very selective application of the claimed values in the manner in which ‘the West’ engages with ‘Africa’ (similar to other postcolonial sites), is paramount to postcolonial scholarship. 

Q11. What is the purpose of probing into these questions?

Probing into these questions is pertinent in the light of the strong Euro/US-centrism that continues to mark scholarly debates on securitization and militarism/militarization (cf. Barkawi, 2011; Barkawi and Laffey, 2006; Bilgin, 2011; Vuori, 2008; Wilkinson, 2007). 

Q12. What is the main theme of Barkawi’s essay?

Barkawi highlights here the problematic tendency of securitization theory to uncritically reflect and reproduce the security politics of so-called advanced liberal democracies (see also Bigo, 2002), thus participating in the ‘defensive liberal politics of war by obfuscating the possibility of aggression’ (Barkawi, 2011: 715). 

Q13. What are the key portrayals of colonial projects?

These portrayals were crucial in legitimizing the colonial project as a civilizing project, and continue to be mirrored in justifications for numerous postcolonial interventions, such as security sector reform (Eriksson Baaz and Stern, 2017). 

Q14. What was the main reason for the supposed deviance?

One domain in which this supposed deviance came to the fore was the pronounced political role of many ‘African’ military establishments, especially their ‘praetorianism’ or penchant for coup d’états (Welch, 1970).