Resource Geopolitics and Domestic Power Bargains: How the 21st-Century Scramble for Africa Reshapes Security and Democratic Space.

Öz

Africa is emerging as a focal point for competition between major global players for strategic natural resources in an increasingly competitive world environment. However, unlike the colonial era extractive regimes, the contemporary competition for access to resources in Africa is taking place under a different set of rules, specifically, investment, security, diplomatic and political elite bargaining rather than the traditional colonial model of direct territorial control. In this article we examine how the global politics of resources are affecting domestic governance arrangements, security governance and democratic space across Africa. The research draws upon qualitative research methods including document-based analysis of policy documents, international agreements, elite speeches, and structured observation to argue that the external competition for access to energy, minerals and strategic resources is reinforcing patterns of authoritarian governance across African countries. Key global actors (including China, the U.S., EU, Russia, and GCC) prioritize supply chain security and their geopolitical position over the level of democratic accountability; therefore, they are undermining governance conditions which could have otherwise been placed on countries receiving large-scale investments from these global actors and increasing the dominant position of executives. The article demonstrates that the politics of resources are changing civil-military relations in ways which legitimize the use of securitization techniques to govern extraction regions in ways that limit political participation while maintaining the formal institutions of democratic government. Through its integration of neo-extractivist political economy with securitization theory, the research provides new knowledge in the field of international relations by demonstrating the linkages between global structural competition for resources and the strategies of regime survival employed by governments. The results contradict liberal assumptions regarding the relationship between the integration of resources and institutional development and demonstrate how global demand for resources leads to the embedding of illiberal governance within state security architectures. Ultimately, the research concludes that without the establishment of a coordinated regional approach to managing the implications of Africa's strategic integration into the global political economy, the likelihood of entrenching illiberal security states will be significantly increased while the potential for democratic development will be diminished.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Resource Geopolitics
• Democratic Backsliding
• Security Governance
• African Political Economy

Kaynakça

1. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003
2. Adler, E., & Haas, P. M. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46(1), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001533
3. Auty, R. M. (1993). Sustaining development in mineral economies: The resource curse thesis. Routledge.
4. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press.
5. Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 7(1), 139–166.
6. Best, J. (2014). Governing failure: Provisional expertise and the transformation of global development finance. Cambridge University Press.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford University Press.
8. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner.

9. Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policymaking. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4
10. Cairney, P., & Oliver, K. (2017). Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(35), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x
11. Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563–595.
12. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states, and world orders. Millennium, 10(2), 126–155.
13. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.
14. de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
15. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press.
16. Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford University Press.
17. Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Routledge.
18. Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442
19. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246
20. Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001
21. Hurd, I. (2017). International organizations: Politics, law, practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
22. Howlett, M. (2019). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments (2nd ed.). Routledge.
23. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2020). Studying public policy (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
24. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. Free Press.
25. Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy Press.
26. OECD. (2020). Building capacity for evidence-informed policy-making. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en
27. Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. Routledge.
28. Ross, M. L. (2012). The oil curse: How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. Princeton University Press.
29. Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press.
30. Sending, O. J., Pouliot, V., & Neumann, I. B. (2015). Diplomacy and the making of world politics. Cambridge University Press.
31. Slaughter, A.M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton University Press.
32. Snyder, R. (2006). Does lootable wealth breed disorder? Comparative Political Studies, 39(8), 943–968.
33. Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy and transnational policy communities. Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00251.x
34. Stone, D. (2013). Knowledge actors and transnational governance. Global Governance, 19(2), 241–260.
35. Turnhout, E., Dewulf, A., & Hulme, M. (2016). What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? Global Environmental Change, 40, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.009
36. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations General Assembly.
37. United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2020). Review of the implementation of GA resolution 68/1. United Nations.
38. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916