Analysis of the Concept and Theoretical Perspectives of Insecurity and Sustainable Development

Analysis of the Concept and Theoretical Perspectives of Insecurity and Sustainable Development

Sule Magaji., A. G. Umar Kari., Hassan Abbas Otakey., Yakubu Jafaru

University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8090276

Received: 12 September 2024; Accepted: 20 September 2024; Published: 23 October 2024

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzed the concept and theoretical perspectives of insecurity and sustainable development. Conceptual analysis does not result with the new definition. It is also not a comparative analysis of definitions with the purpose of formulating an all-embracing definitions. Instead, it formulates a common denominator which expresses “common conceptual distinctions underlying various conceptions and perspectives of insecurity.  Thus, the objective of the paper is to examine the views, opinion and perspectives of scholars, analysts and institutions on the concept of insecurity and sustainable development. The paper to established nexus between the two concepts. The paper examined various empirical literatures and contemporary sociological theories for the explanation and understanding the link between insecurity and sustainable development. The paper discovered that there is a link between insecurity and sustainable development. Insecurity negatively affect sustainable developmental stride. Thus, it concluded that the link between insecurity and sustainable development is strong and thus should not be undermined.

Keywords: Perspective, Security, Insecurity, Development, Sustainable Development.

INTRODUCTION

Security is surely the foundation upon which every meaningful development to be achieved and sustained must be erected (Clement, 2022). Societies of the world heavily rely on security for peace and development. This suggests that security is the bedrock of development. Ukpere (2012) and Elekwa (2016) noted that security is the protection of human and physical resources from hidden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life in homes, offices or communities. There is significant relationship between security and development, because in any country where there is insecurity, there cannot be development. McNamara (1968) as cited in Jabir and Muktar 2020: 253 assert that: Development and is not only limited to military hardware, though it may include it; and is not only relegated to a military force, though it may involve it; and security is not only traditional military activity, but it may encompass it; security is development, and where development is absent, there can be no security.

According to Victor (2015), the linkage between security and development referred to as the security and development nexus. In the literature regarding the security and development nexus, advocates of the paradigm argue that there are a number of mutually reinforcing linkages between security and development. Frances (2004) asserts that the connection between security and development is considered significant both globally and nationally, and cannot be overemphasized.  Development according to Frances (2004) signifies progress in human well-being, used to be equated with economic growth, but it is now widely acknowledged that this is a very inadequate characterization. However, Security in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquire values, in subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked (Wolfers, 1962. cited in Frances, 2004). In spite of its conceptual complexities, the understanding of the term shows that security is vital for national cohesion, peace and sustainable development.

According to Ebun-Olu (2023) security of lives and property has been accorded priority attention by government of different countries of the world be it military or democratic administration. He points out that an atmosphere devoid of fear, anxiety, threat, harm and attack to citizens’ lives and property guarantees political stability and socio-economic development. This implies that development cannot thrive in an atmosphere of Boko Haram terrorism, militancy, ethnic violence, wanton killing and destruction of lives and property, as it is the current case in Nigeria and many parts of the world. These and many other security issues challenge social, economic and entire human development.

Development requires respect for human rights and respect for human rights prevents conflicts. Thus, security and human rights encompass human rights, good governance and access to education, health care, opportunities and chances to fulfill human potentials (Clement, 2022). Several studies (Magaji, Musa, & Salisu, 2022), (Knutsen 2011, Mourad & Avery 2019: Ali 2013: and Kolagar & Sanaei 2022; Jafaru, Magaji & Ahaamd (2024) have shown that there is a correlation between security and development. Corroborating this, Kolagar and Sanaei (2022) state that internal security threats have negative impact to sustainable development. This is because the money that is supposed to be for other developmental projects are allocated to the military allowing those other sectors to languish and rot (Augustine, 2023).

Although, successive military government of Nigeria have recognized that the centerpiece of security is to enhance, promote and make peaceful co-existence and viable economic activities that would no doubt enhance quality of life and bring about global development. Muhammed (2023: 232) noted that insecurity has heightened, leading to severe unimaginable social, economic and political of consequences which have affected national development. Nigerians are contending with a plethora of challenges from kidnapping, insurgency, banditry, terrorism, communal strife and wanton killings, terrorism and Boko Haram Insurgence, wanton killing, armed robbery, communal clashes, politically motivated crises, ritual killings, cultism and other security have negative implications to both human capital and sustainable development.

Muhammed (2023:234) reported that the Global Peace Index (2022) published by the Institute for Economics & Peace measures the level of peacefulness in 163 independent states and territories. In the report, Nigeria is ranked 143rd out of 163 countries, with a score of 2.725. The Global Terrorism Index (2023) also published by the Institute for Economics & Peace analyses the impact of terrorism for 163 countries. The 2023 report ranked Nigeria among the 10 countries most impacted by terrorism. Nigeria was ranked as the 8th country most impacted by terrorist activity, with a score of 8.065 out of 10. The Fragile States Index (2022) published by the Fund for Peace ranks countries based on their vulnerability to conflict and instability. Nigeria was ranked as the 16th most fragile state out of 179 countries. The country has a total score of 97.2 out 120. The country’s ranking on these entire indexes all reflect the worsening security situation in the country, with the government and security agencies facing significant challenges tackling them (2023:243).

According to Lily (2019) War, poverty, exploitation, insurgency, as well as state violence, threaten not only the survival, but also the dignity of millions of people. The harm can come as death, illness, starvation, homelessness, bereavement, and trauma. It can be harm to personal safety, to basic needs, and to freedom of movement, to a language, to a culture, for self-expression. Fear, poverty, and inequality are fundamental threats to human security and development in their day-to-day existence (Enaberue, Musa, & Magaji, 2024). Ebun-Olu (2023) reported that despite available literatures and policies on the conceptualization of (in) security and development by several countries, the concepts remained highly contested concepts globally. Thus, it is against this backdrop that this paper examine the concept and theoretical perspectives to establish the link between the two concepts. The paper aims to examine how insecurity challenges development in Nigeria. To achieve this, the researchers relied on secondary source such as books, journals, essays, and internet sources respectively.

LITERATURE AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW

Conceptual clarification

Security

Concept of insecurity cannot be clearly understood without defining of security. Although, the concept of security is fluid, complex, dynamic, highly contested and lacks precision. However, Adejumo (2011) defined security as the act of keeping peace within the governing territories. Which is usually done by upholding national laws and defending the internal security threats of the nation. According to Richard (2014), security derived its origin from Latin word “Securus” or “Securitas”. Cicero (106 43 BCE) coined the term.  “Se” ‘means without’ and “cura” means free from danger, fear, anxiety, threats or attacks. Literally, therefore, the term securitas means “without fear”, not to worry or care.” Hence, securitas is not about feeling secure, but about remaining calm even when being confronted with evil. The concept is as old as human history and has existed in varying forms, contexts and applications among people from all religions, cultures, creeds, communities, tribes and regions, albeit in a rudimentary form and not as refined as of today (Ihsan, 2022:2).

Chris (2021) describes security as stability and continuity of livelihood (stable and steady income), predictability of daily life (knowing what to expect), protection from crime (feeling safe), and freedom from psychological harm (safety or protection from emotional stress which results from the assurance of knowing that one is wanted, accepted, loved and protected in one’s community or neighborhood and by people around. It focuses on the emotional and psychological sense of belonging to a social group that can offer one protection). Besides security of the person, also mentions economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, community security, and political security (Rechard, 2014: 117). Adeleke (2013) cited in Nwokwu and Ogayi (2021), define security as freedom from threat or violence which could result in loss of lives and valuable properties. Security is generally agreed to be about feeling of being safe from harm, fear, anxiety, oppression, danger, poverty, defence, protection and preservation of core values, and threat to those values (Afolabi, 2015 as cited in Muhammed, 2023).

From the above arguments, concept of security is referred to freedom and protection of people from any form of physical, social, emotional, psychological and environmental harms, and to have the feeling safety, and freedom from danger, fear, anxiety and the threats of attack on individual and community.  Where these security needs are missing, people and society is exposed to what is referred to insecurity.

Insecurity

The concept of insecurity comes semantically complex, with a plurality of meanings Sonia and Valeria (2018). Achumba, Igbemereho and Akpo (2013) assert that insecurity is the antithesis of security. While security means freedom from all forms of threats, attacks, fears, and anxiety, insecurity means not feeling of or absence of security or exposure to danger; hazard; uncertainty; want of confidence; doubtful; inadequately guarded or protected; lacking stability; troubled; lack of protection; and unsafe (Jafaru,Alhaji, & Musa, 2024), (Abdulazeez & Magaji, 2023). All of these have been used by different scholars to define the concept of insecurity. Thus, insecurity is referred to a state of vulnerability to harm and loss of life, property or livelihood.

However, Zygmunt (1999) cited in Andrea (2018) opined that insecurity refers to three main dimensions: Cognitive uncertainty, linked to growing loss of intelligibility and predictability of contemporary societies; an existential insecurity, linked to the increasing social and geographical mobility and to the ongoing changes of the labour market, because of the obsolescence of the specific skills and professional roles, and because of the weakness of social relations which involves all of us; and an insecurity linked to personal safety and to property. This definition means that the perception of insecurity arises as a very heterogeneous concept, not limited to actual crime rates but encompassing a wide range of other aspects including personal well-being, trust in public institutions, justice, and social integration (Andrea, 2018).

However, Chris (2021) defines insecurity as the state of fear or anxiety, stemming from a concrete or alleged lack of protection. This definition reflects physical insecurity which is the most visible form of insecurity, and it feeds into many other forms of insecurity such as economic security and social security, political, environmental insecurity. From the above definitions, insecurity is the feeling or conditions that threatens the social survival of people, and the consequence of which affect human capital development.

Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainable development cannot be clearly understood without first clarifying the concept of development. Development is perceived in various dimensions. According to Abraham (2010) development is multidimensional involving linear perspective, the traditional economic growth perspective. He conceives development as the capacity of a national economy whose initial economic condition has been more or less static for a long time, to generate and sustain an annual increase in its gross national product (GNP) at rates of perhaps 5% or more (Torado and Smith, 2004, cited in (Abraham, 2010). This definition was the conception of classical theorists and western liberalism in the early development decades.

Musa, Magaji, Abudlmalik & Eke (2022) posit that working against poverty, unemployment and inequality are the steps to development. If these three issues declined from high levels, then beyond doubt, this has been a period of development for the country concerned (Abraham, 2010; Mbachu, 2023). However, Rodney, (1972, as cited in Abraham, 2010) sees development as many sided process. At individual level, it implies increased skill and capacity; freedom, creativity, self-discipline, responsibility and material wellbeing. At the level of society, development means increased in capacity to regulate both internal and external relationship and security.

Development according to Mbachu (2023) implies social change and improvement in in the totality of various inter-related changes that occur in the social, psychological, political, environmental, economic, physical, institutional, technological and ideological realms. Thus, development in essence represents the whole gamut of change by which an entire social system moves away from the condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory towards a condition generally regarded as materially, economically, socially, politically better. World Bank, in its 1991 report asserted that, “The challenge of development is to improve the quality of life. Development, according to Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) may be conceptualized as an increasing eradication of poverty, hunger; provision of quality education for all, gender equality; reduction or eradiation of disease and mortality rate; using resources wisely and sustaining the environment, provision of security in all facet of life, implementation of the ideals of global links for development globally (Abraham, 2010). From the foregoing arguments, development is define as qualitative, quantitative and transformative movement in which various social components and structures of society change for better and sustained.

Like the concept of development, sustainable development is complex in its cope and area of applicability (Abubakar, 2019). He asserted that Heinenin 1994 indicated that there is no single unanimous approach to “sustainable development” due to a variety of characteristics of different protection programs and different types of communities and institutions. But the most popular definition is the one adopted by the Bruntland Report of 1987. It defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present generation without compromizing the need of the future generations (Abraham, 2010).

In 1992, the Rio de Janeiro declaration on Environment and Development described sustainable development as long-term continuous development of the society aimed at satisfaction of humanity’s need at present and in the future via rational usage and replenishment of natural resources, preserving the Earth for future generations (Abubakar, 2019). Sustainable development focuses on the availability of resources both for the use of the present generation while also ensuring the availability of the resources for future generations (Moses, 2024).  Sustainable development should be inclusive, equitable, and sustainable to enable succeeding generations to also benefit from it (Audu, 2023).

Thus, sustainable development refers to sustainable improvement of the quality of life aiming at poverty eradiation; provision of quality education, health, creating functional job opportunities for teaming unemployed, basic amenities and infrastructures. It also means safe and secure environment for the future generation (Sabiu & Magaji, 2024), (Sule et al 2024).

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as cited in Moses (2024) are a set of 17 goals set by the international community for nations to achieve between 2015 and 2030. The goals were adopted by 193 nations at the end of the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit of September 2015. It is the global response to sustain the gains of the MDGs beyond its terminal date of 2015. While the MDGs were primarily targeted at poor and developing countries, the SDGs broadened the scope and reach of the objectives of the goals to include both developed and developing countries. The SDGs are therefore more ambitious and broad-based goals set by the international community for countries to achieve by 2030. The SDGs are effort by the international community to improve the lives of people globally and create an environment that is sustainable for future generations (Moses, 2024).

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are:

Below are the 17 sustainable developments goals as identified by Moses (2024); Dolapo and Martins (2023): Goal 1. Eradication of poverty in all its forms everywhere by 2030; Goal 2. Eradication of hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote viable food production and sustainable agriculture; Goal 3. Ensure good health and promote well-being for all at all ages; Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote life-long learning opportunities for all; Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls; Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all; Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all; Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation; Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries; Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts; Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development; Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss; Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels; Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

Nexus between Insecurity and sustainable development

The security-development nexus, though a contested conceptualization, has replaced the previous separation of security and development into two distinct disciplines. According to Chandler (2007), before the security and development nexus paradigm entered the research field, security and development were viewed as two separate sectors with different ideas and aims. However, security-development nexus originated after World War Two, as a framework for development aid by Western donors to developing countries (Bertha, Osei-Hwedie and Napoleon (2020); Barrett, 2018; Koponen, 2010). The nexus was to ensuring security for Western countries by embarking on global development against poverty in the developing world as poverty was viewed as a threat to both security in the West and developing countries (Shaba, Yelwa, Obamsa & Magaji 2018). However, the nexus became an imperative since 1990s, and more, especially, after September 11, 2001 as a framework for intervention by donors. The nexus became the pillar of a coherent, comprehensive and multilateral policy for Western Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) donors and defined their common security and development policies in the recipient countries worldwide, particularly, post-conflict and fragile ones (Bertha, Osei-Hwedie and Napoleon, 2020).

Audu (2023) asserts that security and development are two sides of a coin. He further said, absence of one will affect the other and generate a condition of instability and development inertia. This is true because security is the bedrock of development. Without security, there cannot be development. It is unthinkable to promote inclusive, equitable and sustainable development in an atmosphere of glaring insecurity.

Insecurity has been identified as one of the obstacles to sustainable development (Abdullahi, 2020). Widespread insecurity like war, terrorism, insurgency, sectarian violence, banditry, kidnapping, coup de tat, political violence, ethno religious crises and farmers herdsmen conflicts across the world and Africa in particular present a society characterized by extreme poverty, hunger, disease, squalor, unemployment and death; heightens tension and mistrust; weakens social cohesion. Audu opined that a society contending with the challenges of insecurity is bound to stagnate developmentally because human capital resources have been thwarted and abandoned. According to Ishaku (2020) the activities of Boko Haram Insurgents in Nigeria have some serious effects on nations and international economy in so many ways. For instance, so many lives have been loss in the northern Nigeria. According to Human Rights Watch, over 13,000 people were killed in the Boko Haram attacks in the nation (Ishaku, 2020). The group also attacked security operatives; Schools; Mosques, Churches, Banks, Motor Parks, Markets; government structures and infrastructures critical for sustainable development.

Apart from destruction of lives and property, insecurity has led the increase in unemployment. Many youths are no longer unproductively engaged in any business due to high increase of attracts by the criminal gangs. Insecurity has truncates and halts many economic activities like barbers’ shops, food vendor and so on. Similarly, insecurity halts agricultural activities as farmers and herdsmen are internally displaced to Internally Displaced Camps in many states affected by one form of security challenge or the other. Local farmers, who are the major producers of wheat, rice, corn, maize, beans groundnuts, fish, cattle and bush meat are forced to stop their farming activities for fear of attack and death.

Muhammed (2023: 233) is of the view that the relationship between security and development work both ways. He however argued that, security is a critical component for development to take place in Nigeria. Without adequate security, economic growth and development can be significantly hindered. This is because insecurity can discourage foreign direct investment, reduce business activities and limit access to critical infrastructure. Furthermore, the presence of violence, and conflict in Nigeria can lead to displacement, loss of lives, and property damage, which negatively affects the economic and social wellbeing of the country. On the contrary, development initiatives can also contribute to security in Nigeria. The lack of economic opportunities and access to basic amenities has been identified as one of the root causes of insecurity in the country. Finally, insecurity as Ishaku (2020) observed caused restriction of movement and high cost of living; capital expenditure on security; loss of security personnel; obstruction of elections; destruction and destabilization of  urban people and their means of livelihood; weakens the security system and discourage national and international investments, which will aid developmental stride in Nigeria.

Theoretical framework

In any academic field, theory play the role of explaining events, situation and phenomenon, thus, cannot be underrated because it sheds logical meaning to a research work in a sequential order. Thus, three theories are adopted in this paper: the broken windows theory (BWT), the Functionalist theory, Elite theory and the social contract theory.

The broken window theory suggests that lawlessness grows in a society when societies tolerate relatively minor violations of public order and deliberate efforts needed to crack down on these menace are not in place (Brian, 2012, cited in Kemi, 2021). The broken window theory argues that there is a direct relationship between higher rates of security challenges and the increased complexities are linked in a developmental sequence. Wilson and Kelling in 1982, emphasize that the police and the criminal justice system could not handle the heavy burden of security challenges hence, all developmental units of the society are negatively affected (Kemi, 2021).

The functionalist theory is developed by August Comte, Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons in the twentieth century. The theory owes much to August Comte, who pointed out the need to keep society unified when many traditions were breaking down. According to Emile Durkheim, society is similar to an organism, a system of action and interaction among its members, balanced, bounded and interrelated. Herbert Spencer in his own study compared society to the human body, which function interdependently to help the entire organism survive. These social structures work together to preserve society. The structural-functional approach is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidary and stability   (Haralambos & Holborn, 2013).

Functionalism see society as a set of complex yet interconnected and interrelated parts (family, economy, religion, polity, education and security) which function together for the survival of a whole system. For the functionalists, society is structured and relationships between members of society are organized in terms of rules and that social relationships are patterned and recurrent (Haralambos & Holborn, 2013). The theory on the other hand posits that should either of the sub-unit of the society fails, it affect the entire system. According to Parsons the only way to achieve development in any society is for the identified parts in the society to mutually contribute their quota toward the support of the whole society (Ogunmefun, Aborisade & Aluko 2022). Failure of any of the parts in relationship will affect the growth and development of the whole society. Insecurity issues in any countries is rooted back to the failure of the government and its agents in controlling and combating insecurity issues.

Since security is an integral part of social system, it absence, can pose threat to sustainable development. It further asserts that ineffectiveness and poor job performance of the overall security poses threat to society. However in situations where everyone plays their part in the social system, peace, security, stability and development is inevitable (Ordu & Nnam, 2017).

Another theory used is the Thomas Hobbes’s Social Contract Theory. The theory was propounded in 1751 by Thomas Hobbes and later by John Lock and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. According to Johari (2005), the theory emphasizes an agreement (Social Contract) between the sovereign state and its citizens. Hobbes pointed out that the citizens owe the sovereign state absolute obedience in exchange for protection against domestic law violators, criminals or deviants and foreign enemies. According to Thomas Hobbes, this is the only way to avoid the “state of nature” in which life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because everyone would be struggling for their own self-preservation (Rukky, 2022). She explains that when a government can successfully provide both prosperity and security to a citizen, the social contract is fulfilled. However, given the rampant insecurity in the country, it appears that this social contract has not been fulfilled in many countries of the world including Nigeria. Virtually, every area of the country has been affected by insecurity, to the extent that news of murders, robberies, kidnappings, terrorism, banditry, violence, insurgency and the like have become commonplace.

The social contract theory posits that it is the responsibility of the government to protect lives and properties of the citizens. The citizens in turn are expected to be absolutely obedient to laws and order. He further argues that state exists to enforce rules necessary for social living. He however argued that states alone cannot ensure these rules without the peoples’ cooperation. It is against its backdrop that Hobbes argued that for safety and survival to be guaranteed in the society, a contractual relationship between government and the people have to be in place. The Elite theory of class traced its origin from the work of Karl Marx (Okokon, 2014). He used the word “class” to describe and differentiate two groups of people Bourgeoisie (the rulers) and Proletariat (the ruled) in the society. The word “elite” used by Pareto and Mosca play down the use of bourgeoisie in contemporary world. Pareto (1963) and Mosca (1939) largely attributed the ability of the elites to manipulate power in the interest of the elite class, as it permits them to form a united and unified minority against the masses who are usually uncoordinated and easily manipulated (John, 2023).

Thus, the Elite theory, like the conflict theory argues that the society is grouped into two classes: the ruler and the ruled (Augustine 2023; John, 2023). Okokon (2014) opines that, that is why we often hear of the “educated elite”, the “political elite”, the “ruling elite” and so on. Pareto classified elites into two major groups: 1. the Elite of Lions (Power Elites) 2. the Elites of Foxes. Pareto (1963) argued that the structure of elite is rigid and static structure but individuals in the group may be altered and change over time (Okokon, 2014; John, 2023; Augustine, 2023). The theory provide explanation on the manipulation of power which has generates conflict and security challenges across the world particular in developing countries like Nigeria. John (2023) observed that since Nigeria’s political independence in 1960 the Elite class has produced leaders without conviction, patriotism, and vision. These leaders according to Bariledum, and Serebe (2023) cited in John (2023: Pp. 243) have ‘assumed the dimension that is unusual of realistic function of security and development context’. The consequence of bad leadership is conflict, breakdown of Law and order; and prevalence of security challenges that halt development.

Application of the theories

The three theories adopted for the paper explained that the state of insecurity in Nigeria is caused by elite factor, fragility of the state, weak or rather dysfunctional security architecture and Criminal Justice System and failed social contract between the government and the citizens. It is true that Nigeria is facing various security challenges, including terrorism, religious extremism, kidnaping and banditry, farmers/herders’ conflict, militancy and separatist agitation, armed robbery, sea piracy, porous borders, cybercrimes and socio-political threats (Federal Government of Nigeria, 2019 cited in Muhammed, 2023). The northeast region of Nigeria has been the epicenter of terrorism, with the Boko Haram insurgency and its splinter group, the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), carrying out deadly attacks on civilians and security forces. The group has killed thousands of people, displaced millions, and destroyed properties worth billions of dollars. In the northwest and middle belt regions, banditry, cattle rustling, and kidnapping for ransom have become widespread, with criminal gangs operating freely and attacking communities; communal conflicts between farmers and herders, which have resulted in the loss of lives and properties (Muhammed, 2023).

Udeoba and Eze (2021: 94) reported that kidnapping of students has become a common thing in the country, as over forty students of Government Science College, Kagara in Niger State were kidnapped from their hostel and a student who tried to escape was shot dead. In April 2014, 272 school girls from Chibok, Borno State were abducted. The insurgents took away the students, majority of who were Christians. According to Uke (2021), abduction of students from their school has increased in recent times. In May 2017, suspected militants abducted six students of Lagos State Model College Igbobi in Epe, Lagos. Also, in 2018, at least 110 school girls were kidnapped from Government Girls Science and Technical School Dapchi, Yobe State. Last December, more than 30 school boys of Government Boys Secondary School Kankara, Kastina State were abducted from their hostel. Apart from the fact that kidnappers are running riot in the North, bandits are also having a field day in the zone, with Zamfara and Kastina states most affected. Bandits attack villages, abduct and kill Nigerians at will. They also destroy property. From Borno to Yobe to Adamawa, insurgents are killing villagers, attacking military bases and convoys. Down South, criminal herdsmen are holding the South West, South-South and South-East to ransom (Udeoma and Eze, 2021). They have taken over forests, acting as kings in other peoples land. They take their cattle everywhere and the animals eat up farm crops of helpless farmers. Some elements among them are engaged in kidnapping for ransom, sexual abuse and rape. However, in the southern region, there have been reports of militant attacks on security personnel, oil facilities, and other critical infrastructure. It is truism that the wave of insecurity across the country has exponentially increased, with devastating consequences on national unity and development (Omaki, 2021, cited in Muhammed, 2023).

CONCLUSION

This paper analyzed the concept and theoretical perspectives on the concept of insecurity and sustainable development. The paper reviewed several literatures on the concept of insecurity and sustainable development. Study found that both concepts are complex and lack single precise definition. It also found that there is strong link between insecurity and sustainable development as insecurity threatens developmental strides of any nation. It further discovered that insecurity such as war, terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, politically motivated violence, ethno religious crises, insurgence and other related security threats pose serious challenge to sustainable development goals (SDGs).

In an attempt to provide understanding and explanation on security and development nexus, empirical literatures and theoretical perspectives were reviewed. Structural Functionalist theory, broken windows theory, social contract theory and Elite theory are considered significant to the study. The Elite is adopted in the paper because it provide better explanation on security and development nexus. The theory expound that insecurity in any society of the world is caused by the elite because of their selfish interest and maintenance of status quo in the state. Pareto (1963) and Mosca (1939) largely attributed the ability of the elites to manipulate power in the interest of their class, as it permits them to form a united and unified minority against the masses who are usually uncoordinated and easily manipulated (John, 2023). John opined that insecurity in any society is caused as a result of bad leadership style of the elite. Finally, the theory provides explanation on the manipulation of power which has generates conflict and general security challenges across the world particular in developing countries like Nigeria.

REFERENCES

1. Abdullahi, I. (2020). Addressing Security Challenges: A Study of Government Roles. Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, Kaduna State, Nigeria.
2. Abraham, N. T. (2010). Introduction to Marxism and Political Economy. ETHIOPE Publishing Corporation, Benin, Nigeria.
3. Abraham, N. T. (2010). The Praxis of Development and Underdevelopment. ETHIOPE Publishing Corporation, Benin, Nigeria.
4. Abubakar, S. Y. A. (2019). Good Governance: The Panacea to Peace, Security and Sustainable Development. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance. Vol. X, No. 10. Pp. 1-17. ISSN: 0976 – 11951.
5. Achumba, I. C., Ighomereho, O. S. and Akpor-Robaro, M. O. M. (2013). Security Challenges in Nigeria and the Implications for Business Activities and Sustainable Development. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development. Vol.4, No.2. pp. 77-99. ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online) 201379. iiste.org.
6. Andrea, T. B. (2018). The Dimensions of Insecurity in Urban Areas. Research in the Roots of Unsafety and Fear of Crime in European Cities. National Institute of Criminology, Budapest.
7. Audu, N. G. (2023). Defence, Security and Development. In Tar and WApmuk (Eds) The Changing Dimension of Defence, Security and Strategy in a Globalized World: Essays in Commemoration of the Nigerian Defence Academy at 60. Pp. 31-40. Nigerian Defence Academy Press, Kaduna, Nigeria.
8. Augustine, E. (2023). Internal Security Threats: Challenges to Sustainable Development in Nigeria. Paper presented at the 28th Nigerian Anthropological and Sociological Practitioners Association (NASA), National Conference @ Nasarawa State University, Keffi-Nasarawa State, Nigeria.
9. Barrett, R. (2018). The Development-Security Nexus: An Exploitative Past and Present. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/07/24/the-development-security-nexus-an exploitative-past-and present/.
10. Bertha Z.; Osei-H., and Napoleon K. (2020). Security-Development Nexus: China’s Policy Framework towards Africa. Electronic Journal of Social and Strategic Studies. Vol. 1. No 1. Pp. 1-17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.47362/EJSSS.2020.1101.
11. Chris, A. (2021).Bottom of FormSecurity challenges in Nigeria and the implications for business activities and sustainable development. Available on: https://nsacc.org.ng/security-challenges-in-nigeria-and-the-implications-for-business-activities-and-sustainable-development/.
12. Clement C. C. (2022). Issues on National Security, Human Rights and National Development in Nigeria: Issues on National Security, Human Rights and National Development in Nigeria. UNIZIK Journal of Public and Private Law. Vol. 12. Pp. 120-128.
13. Delapo, M. O. and Martins, A. O. (2023). Illicit Drug Trafficking, Institutional Frameworks and Sustainable Development. In Adejoh, S., Bashir, B., and Biola, S. (Eds) National Drug Law Enforcement Agency and National Security: Perspective on Drugs, Crime and Human Security. Vol. 1. Pp. 263-285. Nigerian Defence Academy Press, Kaduna, Nigeria.
14. Ebun-Olu, A. (2023). Crisis of Insecurity as a Challenge of Development. The Guardian.
15. Elekwa, B. C. (2016). Evaluating the services of the Abia State Vigilante Security Services.
16. Enaberue, E., Musa, I., and Magaji, S. (2024). Impact of Income Inequality on Poverty Level in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting. Vol. 24(5). Pp. 86-98
17. Frances, S. (2004) Development and Security: Working paper 3. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE. Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
18. Haralambos and Holborn (2013). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (8^th Ed). Harper Collins Publishers, London.
19. Ishaku, H. (2020). Nigerian Armed Forces and the Challenges of Domestic Terrorism. In Tar, U., Sharkdam, W. and Efem, N. U., (Eds), Perspectives on Contemporary Nigerian Politics and international Relations: Essays in Honour of Professor Warisu Alli. Nigerian Defence Academy Press and the Nigerian Institute for International Affairs Press, Nigeria.
20. Jabir, M, and Muktar, U. L. (2020). Insecurity and Terrorism in Nigeria: Implications for National Development. African Journal of African Sustainable Development (JASD-2). Vol. 17 No. 2. Pp. 245-266. ISSN: 2010-1086
21. Jafaru, Y., Magaji, S., and Ahmad, A. I. (2024). Poverty, Family Status, and Crime: Insights from Gwagwalada, Abuja, Nigeria. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews 5(5), 6745-6755
22. Jafaru, Y., Magaji, S., and Musa, I. (2024). Socio-Economic Effects of Armed Robbery in Kaduna Metropolis. International Journal of Humanitarians, Social Science and Management. Vol. 4(2), Pp. 606 – 612
23. Johari, J. (2005). Contemporary political theory: new dimensions, basic concepts and trends. New Delhi, Sterling Publishers, Ltd.
24. John, A. A. (2023). Insecurity: The Bane of Development in Nigeria. In Tar and Wapmuk (Eds), Defence, Security and Sustainable Development in Africa: Emerging Challenges and Perspectives. Vol. 2. Pp. 239-255. Nigerian Defence Academy Press, Kaduna, Nigeria.
25. Koponen, S. (2010). The Security-development nexus, state fragility as state building: A beginner’s guide to discussion and some suggestions for orientation, in Alava, H (Ed), Exploring the Security Development Nexus: Perspectives from Nepal, Northern Uganda and Singapore. Finland: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ISBN 978-951-724-822-8.
26. Lily, H. (2019). Security challenges of the 21st century: New Challenges and Perspectives. Journal of Global Faultlines, Vol. 6, No. 2. Pp. 121-123.
27. Magaji, S., Ahmad, A.I., Sabiu, S.B and Yunusa, A. A. (2024). From Deforestation to Population: Unraveling Environmental Challenges in Nigeria and Pakistan. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management. Vol. 4(2). Pp, 805-814
28. Magaji, S., Musa, I., and Salisu, A. (2022). Impact of Insecurity on Youth Unemployment in Nigeria. (OLS). Indiana Journal of Economics and Business Management. Vol. 2(1). Pp.4-9
29. Moses, U. U. (2024). The Impact of Insecurity on the Sustainable Development Goals in Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS). Vol. VIII, Issue IV. Pp. 999-2009. ISSN No. 2454-6186. DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS. rsisinternational.org.
30. Muhammed, S. I. (2023). Security and national development in Contemporary nigeria: issues, challenges and Prospects. Journal of the Faculty of Social Sciences. Vol. 13, No. 1. Pp. 231-243. Available at: https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:784285/FULLTEXT01.pdf
31. Musa, I., Magaji, S., Abdulmalik, T. O, and Eke, C. I. (2022). Poverty and its Interactivity: Causes and Consequences. Inclusive Society and Sustainability Studies. Vol. 2(2). Pp. 48-58
32. Nbachu, I. O. (2023). Global Defence and Security Studies and Sustainable Development. In Tar and Wapmuk (Eds), Defence, Security and Sustainable Development in Africa: Emerging Challenges and Perspectives. Vol. 2. Pp. 1-22. Nigerian Defence Academy Press, Kaduna, Nigeria.
33. Niyi, A. (2020). Intelligence Gathering and Challenges of Insecurity in Nigeria. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies: AJCJS, Vol.13, #1 April 2020 ISSN 1554-3897. Pp. 30-39.
34. Ogunmefun, F. M., Aborisade, R. A. and Aluko T. (2022). A Theoretical Discourse of Substance Abuse and Security Threat among Nigerian Youths; Current Literatures and Interrogations. Renwick International of Social Sciences (RISS) Journal. Vol. 3, No.2.| Pp. 281-290. ISSN Online: 2722-5674 ISSN Print: 2722-5666 http://www.randwickresearch.com/index.php/rissj.
35. Okokon, J. C. (2014). Sociological Thoery: Historic- Analytical Approaches on Man and Society (3^rd Ed). University of Calabar Press, Calabar, Nigeria.
36. Ordu, A. E and Nnam, M.U. (2017). Community Policing in Nigeria: A Critical Analysis of Current Development. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. Vol. 12(1). Doi.110.5281/zenojo.3457.6/IJCJS.
37. Richard, O. (2014). Security, Concept and History. Available at: https://research.utwente.nl/files/141603675/Nagenborg2014ecurity.pdf.
38. Rukky, O. I. (2022). Insecurity in Nigeria: Evidence of a Failed Social Contract. Available on: https://kiki132.com/2022/05/13/insecurity-in-nigeria-evidence-of-a-failed-social-contract/.
39. Sabiu, S. B., and Magaji, S. (2024). Effect of Oil Exploration and Climate Change on the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Vol. 6(1). Pp. 36-49.
40. Shaba, Y. N., Yelwa, M., Obamsa, S.A.J., and Magaji, S. (2018). Manifestation of Income Inequality and Poverty Prevalence in Selected North Central States of Nigeria. Journal of Economic and Public Finance. Vol. 4(2), Pp. 130-142.
41. Sonia, S. and Valera, V. (2018). Overview of Insecurity, Urban Security and Safety with Special Regard to Italy. In Andrea, T. B. (Ed). The Dimensions of Insecurity in Urban Areas. Research in the Roots of Unsafety and Fear of Crime in European Cities. Pp. 15-26.
42. Udeoba, C. E. and Eze, C. U. (2021). Government Strategies in Tackling Insecurity in Nigeria and the Way Forward. Nigeria Journal of Social Development (NGJSD). Vol. 10 (1). Pp. 93-97.
43. Ukpere, W. I. (2012). National Security and Development in Nigeria. African Journal of Business Management. Vol. 6 (23). Pp. 6765-6770.
44. Victor, J. (2015). The Security and Development Nexus: A Policy Analysis. African Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences (AJSBS).