INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5376 www.rsisinternational.org
The Role of External Actors in Shaping Civil Society and Human
Rights Protection in Post Conflict Africa
Phidelia Serwaah
Political Science Department, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000438
Received: 22 October 2025; Accepted: 30 October 2025; Published: 14 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This paper examines how external actors shape civil society and human rights protection in post conflict Africa
through financial, normative, and coercive mechanisms. Using a qualitative synthesis of scholarly literature,
policy documents, and institutional reports, the study develops a hybrid constructivist dependency framework
that integrates ideational and structural perspectives to explain the paradox of empowerment and dependency in
external engagement. The analysis covers key post conflict cases including Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings show that
international assistance strengthens governance and promotes rights awareness but also reproduces aid
dependency, politicizes justice, and narrows civic space through conditionality and securitized aid. Civil society
organizations demonstrate resilience by localizing global norms and reinterpreting them through indigenous
practices and community legitimacy. The paper concludes that sustainable post conflict reconstruction requires
transforming external assistance into equitable partnership that prioritizes local ownership, long term capacity
building, and regional collaboration. By combining constructivist and dependency insights, this study contributes
to understanding how global and local forces shape Africa’s evolving human rights architecture and provides
policy guidance for aligning international engagement with locally driven democratic renewal.
Keywords: External actors, civil society, human rights protection, post conflict Africa, peacebuilding,
transitional justice, private military companies
INTRODUCTION
Across Africa, post conflict transitions have become testing grounds for the reconstruction of political order,
justice, and human rights protection (Opongo, 2021). Decades of internal strife, civil wars, and authoritarian
governance have left legacies of institutional fragility and deep societal divisions (Offiong Duke & David Agbaji,
2018; Opongo, 2021). In such fragile environments, civil society organizations (CSOs) often emerge as key
agents of peacebuilding and democratic renewal. They monitor human rights abuses, advocate for marginalized
groups, and provide humanitarian relief where the state remains weak or complicit in past violations (Ekiyor,
n.d.). Yet their effectiveness and independence are profoundly shaped by the influence of external actors such as
international donors, multilateral organizations, foreign governments, and transnational nongovernmental
organizations whose interventions structure the post conflict governance landscape in complex and sometimes
contradictory ways (Maigari, 2022).
The African continent provides numerous examples where external engagement has both empowered and
constrained local civil society. Following the genocidal violence in Rwanda in 1994, international donors and
humanitarian agencies flooded the country with resources to rebuild governance and ensure human rights
monitoring (Rataski, 2011; Voloshchuk et al., 2021). Similarly, in post conflict Liberia and Sierra Leone, United
Nations missions and bilateral partners such as the United States and the United Kingdom financed human rights
commissions, civil society capacity building, and community reintegration programs (Nelson-Richards, n.d.).
These interventions, though crucial for stabilization, also generated dependencies on foreign aid, introduced
externally defined accountability frameworks, and sometimes sidelined indigenous networks of activism that
predated the conflicts (Sharma, n.d.). External actors in post conflict Africa thus function as both guarantors and
gatekeepers of rights protection (Ismail & Sköns, 2014; Pacheco et al., n.d.). Their resources and legitimacy can
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5377 www.rsisinternational.org
strengthen domestic institutions for justice and reconciliation, as seen in the role of the African Union and United
Nations in supporting transitional justice in The Gambia after 2017 (Pacheco et al., n.d.). Yet their strategic and
political interests can equally distort local priorities, entrench elite bargains, and suppress grassroots advocacy.
The tension between empowerment and dependency lies at the heart of Africa’s evolving post conflict
reconstruction experience. This dynamic raises vital questions about the sustainability of civil society activism
and the extent to which external engagement enhances or undermines human rights accountability in fragile
contexts (Aslam et al., 2015).
In recent years, the continent has witnessed both renewed and ongoing conflict that reveal the shifting forms of
external influence. The wars in Sudan and South Sudan (Kidane Kiros, 2024), the persistent instability in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo(John & Joyce, 2014) , the humanitarian catastrophe in Ethiopia’s Tigray
region (Dawit & Yohannes, 2023), and the complex insurgencies in Mali and Burkina Faso(Benjaminsen & Ba,
2024; Haavik et al., 2022) have exposed how international and regional actors shape the contours of post conflict
recovery and rights protection. In Sudan’s post Bashir transition, for instance, Western, Gulf, and regional actors
competed to shape the direction of reform and accountability for mass atrocities, a contest that influenced the
outbreak of renewed conflict in 2023 (Kurtz, 2024). In the Sahel, counterterrorism cooperation and military
partnerships have redefined the security landscape, with external military aid affecting the operational space of
civil society groups documenting abuses by both state and non-state actors (Jalale, 2024). Similarly, Ethiopia’s
recent internal conflict illustrated how humanitarian access, international mediation, and donor conditionality
intersect with national sovereignty in contested ways.
The growing complexity of these interventions reflects broader transformations in global governance and
international relations. Traditional models of post conflict assistance that emphasized liberal peacebuilding have
increasingly been replaced by hybrid arrangements that blend security cooperation, counterterrorism priorities,
and selective human rights promotion (Karlsrud, 2023). As a result, the boundary between humanitarian aid,
peacekeeping, and geopolitical competition has blurred. For example, the presence of private military companies
in Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado province and in parts of the Central African Republic (ISS Today, 2021) has
introduced new forms of coercive external involvement that challenge existing accountability mechanisms.
Reports by international observers and human rights bodies have documented serious violations linked to such
actors, raising questions about the regulation of external coercive power and its impact on civilian protection
(Fentahun, 2023; Mohamed, 2025). These patterns complicate the ability of local CSOs to operate freely,
maintain credibility, and pursue justice in politically sensitive environments.
Across these cases, external actors influence post conflict societies through three principal mechanisms: financial
assistance, normative frameworks, and coercive power. Financial assistance from international donors and
multilateral institutions sustains critical governance and rights protection programs but also risks creating
dependency and donor driven agendas (Browne, 2012). Normative influence operates through the diffusion of
global human rights norms, transitional justice models, and good governance benchmarks that may not always
align with local political cultures or needs (Och, 2018). Coercive power, exercised through military
interventions, peacekeeping mandates, or security partnerships, directly affects the balance between state
authority and civil liberties (Duursma et al., 2023; Ismail & Sköns, 2014). The interplay of these mechanisms
determines whether external engagement reinforces or undermines local agency and the rule of law.
Over the past two decades, external engagement in Africa has therefore evolved from humanitarian response
toward a more comprehensive and often securitized approach to peacebuilding (Dzinesa & Curtis, 2012). The
shift is evident in donor emphasis on stabilization, countering violent extremism, and migration management
areas that frequently overshadow long term support for democratic accountability and human rights.
Consequently, civil society organizations face mounting pressures to align with donor priorities, navigate
security constraints, and compete for limited funding, often at the expense of autonomy and sustainability (Banks
et al., 2015; Kumi et al., 2025; Parks, 2008). Yet despite these challenges, African civil society continues to
demonstrate resilience through innovative forms of advocacy, coalition building, and localization of global
norms.
This study investigates the role of external actors in shaping civil society and human rights protection in post
conflict Africa, focusing on both historical and contemporary cases. It situates the discussion within broader
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5378 www.rsisinternational.org
debates about sovereignty, global governance, and the localization of peacebuilding agendas. The study argues
that understanding the mechanisms of external influence including financial, normative, and coercive is essential
for assessing the resilience and autonomy of African CSOs in transitional contexts. The key research questions
guiding the study are the following: How do distinct categories of external actor influence the capacity of civil
society organizations to monitor and protect human rights in post conflict settings? Under what conditions does
external funding support local autonomy as opposed to creating dependency and delegitimization? How do
security related external interventions affect the safety and operational space of rights defenders? Finally, how
do local political actors mediate the effects of external engagement on accountability for past abuses?
By addressing these questions, the paper contributes to understanding how the interplay between external
assistance and local agency shapes Africa’s evolving human rights architecture. The next sections review
theoretical debates on external intervention and civil society development, outline methodological approaches,
and analyze case studies from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Sudan, and Ethiopia. Through this multi layered
exploration, the paper aims to clarify how global and local forces converge to redefine the meaning of post
conflict justice and democratic reconstruction in contemporary Africa.
This paper makes a distinct contribution to the literature on post-conflict reconstruction and human rights
protection in Africa by integrating constructivist and dependency perspectives within a unified analytical
framework. While existing scholarship often examines external intervention through either normative
(constructivist) or structural (political economy) lenses, this study bridges these approaches to reveal how ideas,
power, and resources interact in shaping civil society outcomes. It advances the field by offering a comparative,
multi-country synthesis that traces how financial, normative, and coercive mechanisms of external influence are
localized and contested across African contexts. Empirically, the paper broadens understanding of African
agency in post-conflict governance by highlighting adaptive strategies through which civil society actors
reinterpret, resist, or hybridize external norms. Conceptually, it proposes a hybrid “constructivist–dependency”
model that explains the paradoxical coexistence of empowerment and dependency in post-conflict engagement.
This dual-level analysis linking global governance dynamics with localized civic agency offers a nuanced
framework for both scholars and policymakers seeking to reconcile international support with sustainable local
ownership
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review synthesizes the major strands of research that explain how external actors influence civil
society and human rights protection in post-conflict Africa. It integrates theoretical, empirical, and
methodological perspectives to map the complex interplay between international engagement, local agency, and
post-conflict governance. The review covers five interrelated debates liberal peace and its critics; aid
effectiveness and donor dependency; civil society and transnational advocacy; the security–development nexus;
and geopolitical and normative contestation while situating them within broader theoretical frameworks,
including liberal institutionalism, constructivism, and postcolonial critique.
Across these debates, scholars agree that post-conflict transitions are deeply contested spaces where domestic
and external actors negotiate the meaning of peace, justice, and sovereignty (Kobayashi et al., 2025). The
literature highlights both enabling and constraining effects of external engagement, emphasizing that outcomes
depend on the interaction between financial, normative, and coercive mechanisms.
Liberal Peace and Its Critics
The liberal peace paradigm has long framed international engagement in post-conflict contexts. It assumes that
democratization, rule of law, market liberalization, and institutional reform supported by international actors can
stabilize societies emerging from violence(Finkenbusch, 2021; Richmond, 2006) . Under this model, external
actors such as the United Nations, bilateral donors, and international NGOs promote elections, human rights
education, and governance reforms as universal templates for peace.
However, critics argue that liberal peacebuilding often operates as an externally imposed project that neglects
local ownership and fails to address the political roots of conflict (Craig et al., 2015; PARIS, 2010). Roland Paris
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5379 www.rsisinternational.org
and others note that top-down liberal reforms can inadvertently reproduce dependency and exclude grassroots
voices (COOPER et al., 2011). Empirical work from Liberia, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone demonstrates that
externally mandated institutional designs frequently overlook indigenous conflict resolution traditions, thereby
producing fragile peace and limited legitimacy (Atkinson, 2008; Bindi & Tufekci, 2018; Sambo, 2024) .
Constructivist scholars deepen this critique by showing that peacebuilding is not just a technical enterprise but
a social process of norm diffusion and identity formation (McCandless & Donais, 2020). From this lens, external
actors socialize domestic elites into new understandings of legitimacy, human rights, and citizenship, often
reproducing Western normative frameworks. Meanwhile, critical and postcolonial scholars argue that liberal
peacebuilding perpetuates structural inequalities and dependency reminiscent of colonial governance (Kristoffer,
2015). Table 1 shows the major theoretical perspectives on external actors and post-conflict civil society.
Table 1: Major Theoretical Perspectives on External Actors and Post-Conflict Civil Society
Theoretical Lens Core Assumptions Mechanisms of
Influence
Implications for Civil
Society and Human
Rights
Liberal Institutionalism Peace and rights can be secured
through externally supported
institutions and governance
reforms.
Conditional aid,
capacity-building,
electoral support.
Strengthens institutions
but risks superficial
compliance.
Constructivism International norms and
identities shape domestic
governance behavior.
Norm diffusion,
socialization,
legitimacy framing.
Promotes global values
but may marginalize local
justice norms.
Dependency/Postcolonial
Theory
External engagement reproduces
structural inequality and
dependency.
Donor
conditionalities, elite
capture, and aid
reliance.
Constrains autonomy and
reinforces external
dominance.
Hybrid Peace Framework Peace emerges from interaction
between external and local
actors.
Adaptation of global
norms to local
contexts.
Generates context-
sensitive but fragmented
governance models.
Aid Effectiveness, Donor Dependency, and the Political Economy of Reconstruction
A large body of literature examines how foreign aid shapes governance, political incentives, and institutional
resilience in fragile and post-conflict states. Optimists highlight its role in funding essential services, supporting
truth and reconciliation commissions, and enabling CSOs to promote accountability(Faust et al., 2015; Fitriani,
2024; Kristoffer, 2015). In Rwanda, for example, donor aid was central to rebuilding administrative capacity and
promoting reconciliation (Uwaliraye et al., 2024).
Yet, other scholars warn that aid can entrench elite capture, distort domestic accountability, and foster
dependency (Elnour, n.d.; Uwaliraye et al., 2024). Peter Uvin’s work on Rwanda demonstrates how well-
intentioned aid, when entangled with local politics, may exacerbate inequality and marginalization. More recent
analyses extend this critique to stabilization funding and security assistance, showing that resources are often
diverted from human rights programming toward short-term counterinsurgency objectives (Uvin, 1999).
The political economy literature thus calls for detailed tracing of how financial incentives and conditionalities
influence the behavior of state and non-state actors. Constructivist insights complement this view by suggesting
that aid is not only a resource but also a carrier of norms and values that reshape political identities and
expectations.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5380 www.rsisinternational.org
Civil Society, Localization, and Transnational Advocacy
Civil society occupies a central position in the discourse on post-conflict democratization and rights protection.
CSOs serve as watchdogs, service providers, and advocates for marginalized communities. However, their
autonomy is often shaped by donor structures and global advocacy networks.
Transnational linkages through international NGOs, funding partnerships, and advocacy coalitions can
strengthen local capacity, provide legal expertise, and amplify domestic voices at the global level (Andonova &
Piselli, 2022; Gabel & Ningning Yang, 2022). Conversely, overreliance on foreign funding can “crowd out”
grassroots activism and shift local agendas toward donor-driven priorities. The localization literature stresses
that sustainable post-conflict reconstruction requires partnership models that transfer leadership to local actors
(McGrath et al., 2025).
Empirical studies from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and The Gambia show both sides of this equation. In some cases,
external partnerships enabled effective transitional justice and reparations programs. In others, they weakened
local legitimacy and constrained autonomous mobilization. These findings underscore that the type, duration,
and governance of external partnerships significantly influence the health of civil society ecosystems.
The Security–Development Nexus and Coercive External Actors
Recent research has highlighted the increasing convergence between humanitarian, development, and security
agendas in post-conflict Africa, a process described as the security–development nexus (Chandler, 2007). As
international and regional actors seek stability, human rights objectives are often subordinated to
counterterrorism and state security priorities.
This shift has been evident in contexts such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Somalia, where external military
assistance, peacekeeping, and counterterrorism programs dominate the reconstruction agenda. The rise of private
military companies, including Russian-linked mercenary groups, further complicates accountability and
transparency. Their involvement in states like Sudan and the Central African Republic has been linked to both
tactical regime survival and human rights violations.
The militarization of external engagement can shrink civic space and reconfigure power dynamics. Scholars
argue that without strong oversight and multilateral accountability mechanisms, coercive external actors risk
undermining the very human rights norms they claim to protect (Chandler, 2007; Roggeband & Krizsán, 2021;
World Peace Foundation, 2024).
Geopolitics, Normative Contestation, and the Changing Architecture of Global Civil Society
The global distribution of power has become increasingly multipolar, introducing new forms of competition over
governance norms and models. Non-Western actors such as China, Turkey, and Gulf states offer alternative
modalities of engagement that challenge traditional Western liberal norms. This has created normative
contestation over sovereignty, intervention, and human rights (Brice et al., 2025; Karim, 2025).
In Africa, this competition manifests through shifts in external partnerships and domestic alignments. For
instance, Sahelian states that have turned toward new security patrons have simultaneously withdrawn from
multilateral rights commitments, reshaping civil society’s operating environment. The framing of international
justice institutions as “biased” or “neocolonial” further influences how governments regulate CSOs and restrict
external funding flows.
Constructivist and postcolonial scholars interpret this shift as a struggle over the meaning of global legitimacy
and justice, where African states assert sovereignty but also risk insulating themselves from rights-based
scrutiny(Alaka, 2025; Nyirenda, n.d.) . The table 2 shows the Post-Conflict cases and external actors influences.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5381 www.rsisinternational.org
Table 2: Selected African Post-Conflict Cases and External Actor Influence
Country Conflict Period Key External
Actors
Forms of Engagement Impact on Civil Society and
Human Rights
Rwanda
1994 genocide aftermath
(Voloshchuk et al., 2021)
UN, EU,
USAID,
World Bank
Reconstruction aid,
human rights programs
Strengthened governance
but limited pluralism.
Liberia 1989–2003 civil wars
(Woldetsadik, 2019)
UNMIL,
USA,
ECOWAS
Peacekeeping,
institution building,
civil society grants
Promoted stability yet
fostered aid dependency.
Sierra
Leone
1991–2002 civil war (Bindi
& Tufekci, 2018)
UK, UN,
DFID
DDR programs, truth
commission support
Enhanced rights awareness
but elite capture persisted.
Sudan 2003–present (Darfur,
transition) (Kidane Kiros,
2024)
AU, EU, Gulf
States
Peace mediation,
humanitarian aid
Improved dialogue but
politicized justice.
Ethiopia
(Tigray)
2020–2022 conflict (Dawit
& Yohannes, 2023)
UN, EU, US Mediation, sanctions,
human rights
monitoring
Encouraged reforms yet
limited sovereignty
perception.
Mali and
Burkina
Faso
2012–ongoing insurgencies
(Benjaminsen & Ba, 2024;
Haavik et al., 2022)
France, EU,
AU
Counterterrorism,
governance support
Restricted civic space amid
security operations.
Methodological Gaps and Directions in the Literature
Despite extensive debate, significant methodological gaps remain. Much of the existing research is case-specific
and qualitative, limiting comparative generalization. Scholars call for mixed method approaches that integrate
mechanism tracing, funding databases, and conflict event data to capture how external interventions operate
across time and scale.
Moreover, many studies treat civil society as a homogenous entity, overlooking internal diversity among service-
oriented NGOs, advocacy groups, legal aid networks, and grassroots movements. Differentiating among these
categories is critical for understanding how various actors respond differently to external funding and influence.
Finally, there is a need to analyze how financial, normative, and coercive mechanisms intersect to produce
distinct outcomes for human rights protection and civic autonomy.
Synthesis and Implications for This Study
The reviewed literature converges on several key insights. First, external actors matter through multiple and
interdependent channels financial, normative, and coercive and their effects are highly context-dependent.
Second, the balance between empowerment and dependency determines whether external assistance strengthens
or undermines local ownership. Third, the rise of multipolar geopolitics has complicated the traditional donor
landscape, introducing alternative patronage systems that both expand and constrain civil society.
This study builds on these insights by adopting an integrated analytical framework that combines constructivist
and political economy approaches. It aims to map the specific mechanisms through which external actors shape
civil society and human rights protection across a comparative set of African cases, illuminating how global
norms are localized and how local agency mediates external influence.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5382 www.rsisinternational.org
In summary, while external engagement has the potential to advance post-conflict democratization and human
rights protection, its outcomes remain uneven and deeply embedded in the structural, normative, and geopolitical
contexts of African societies. The next sections employ comparative analysis and mechanism tracing to examine
these dynamics empirically and propose pathways for aligning external engagement with locally led, sustainable
rights protection.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design and Theoretical Anchoring
This study adopts a qualitative, interpretivist research design (Wiesner, 2022) situated within a constructivist
epistemological framework. Constructivism asserts that social realities are not objective or fixed but are
constructed through social interactions, shared meanings, and the interplay of norms and identities (Nyirenda,
n.d.; V & A, 2016). In post-conflict Africa, this approach enables a deep exploration of how external actors such
as international organizations, foreign governments, and non-governmental entities-construct and reshape the
meaning of civil society, human rights, and governance in fragile states. Constructivism is particularly relevant
because post-conflict reconstruction is not purely a technical process of rebuilding institutions; it is a deeply
political and normative project that involves defining what peace, democracy, and rights mean within specific
cultural and historical contexts.
In addition to constructivism, this study integrates insights from liberal peace theory, dependency theory, and
the security-development nexus framework to develop a comprehensive and multidimensional analytical model.
The liberal peace paradigm, rooted in liberal internationalism, assumes that lasting peace emerges through
democratization, market liberalization, and the protection of individual freedoms. External actors operating in
Africa such as the United Nations, the European Union, and bilateral donors often base their post-conflict
interventions on this model. However, this framework has been criticized for universalizing Western governance
templates and overlooking local agency and indigenous peace mechanisms.
To balance this view, the study employs dependency theory, which foregrounds the structural economic
inequalities that persist between global North and South. Dependency theory emphasizes that external
interventions often reproduce patterns of dependency and underdevelopment, rather than achieving sustainable
autonomy. Within post-conflict reconstruction, this theoretical perspective reveals how donor-driven agendas
and conditionalities shape the policy priorities of African governments and civil society organizations, often
constraining their ability to define independent developmental and human rights strategies.
Lastly, the security-development nexus provides a critical bridge between the ideational and material dimensions
of intervention. It highlights the growing trend of merging humanitarian assistance, security operations, and
development programming within fragile states. This framework helps contextualize how external actors, while
promoting peace and human rights, also advance strategic security and geopolitical interests. Together, these
four frameworks constructivism, liberal peace, dependency, and security-development nexus create an analytical
triangulation that allows this study to interpret the complex power relations and normative exchanges shaping
civil society and human rights protection in post-conflict Africa.
Research Questions
Based on this theoretical synthesis, the study is guided by the following central research questions:
1. How do external actors shape the formation and functioning of civil society in post-conflict African
states?
2. To what extent do external interventions enhance or constrain human rights protection frameworks in
these contexts?
3. How do ideational (constructivist) and structural (dependency) factors interact in defining the
relationship between external actors and domestic institutions?
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5383 www.rsisinternational.org
4. How does the liberal peace paradigm align with, or diverge from, the realities of post-conflict societies
in Africa?
5. What are the implications of the security-development nexus for the autonomy and sustainability of civil
society in fragile states?
These questions ensure theoretical and empirical coherence by linking the normative, institutional, and material
dimensions of external influence in post-conflict reconstruction.
Research Approach and Methodological Rationale
Given the exploratory and interpretive nature of the research questions, a qualitative approach is the most suitable
methodological path. Quantitative designs, though valuable for measuring specific indicators, are insufficient to
capture the complex discursive and relational dynamics underpinning post-conflict interventions. Instead, this
study focuses on contextual interpretation, meaning construction, and the power of discourse in shaping post-
conflict realities. The emphasis is not on measuring the extent of influence but on understanding how influence
is enacted, legitimized, and internalized across different actors and settings.
This interpretive orientation aligns with constructivist methodology, which privileges meanings, perceptions,
and narratives as units of analysis. It also resonates with critical realism, recognizing that material structures
such as economic dependencies and aid conditionalities constrain agency, even as social actors construct
meaning within them. By synthesizing interpretivist and critical perspectives, this study provides a nuanced
analysis that captures both the ideational construction and the structural reproduction of power.
Data Sources and Sampling
The study draws exclusively from secondary qualitative data, combining scholarly, institutional, and policy
sources to achieve analytical depth and triangulation. Data sources include:
Peer-reviewed academic journals in political science, international relations, and development studies
(e.g., African Affairs, Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, and Human Rights Quarterly).
Policy reports and evaluation documents from major international actors, including the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), African Union (AU), World Bank, European Union (EU), USAID,
and the International Crisis Group (ICG).
Archival and historical materials from transitional justice institutions and post-conflict commissions
(e.g., Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and South Africa).
NGO publications and human rights documentation from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
and regional advocacy networks.
A purposive sampling strategy is applied to select texts that explicitly address the intersections of post-conflict
reconstruction, civil society development, and human rights. Priority is given to materials published between
2010 and 2025 to capture current patterns, with selective historical references to foundational cases such as
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Liberia for comparative grounding.
Analytical Framework and Procedure
Data were analyzed using a thematic synthesis approach combined with discourse analysis and comparative case
study analysis, allowing both conceptual depth and empirical breadth. The objective was to trace how external
actors influence civil society and human rights protection across different African post-conflict contexts through
financial, normative, and coercive mechanisms.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5384 www.rsisinternational.org
Data Composition and Selection
The study drew on a purposively selected dataset of approximately ninety-five documents, including peer-
reviewed journal articles, policy briefs, institutional reports, and human-rights assessments published between
2010 and 2025. Texts were included if they explicitly addressed at least one of the study’s central themes post-
conflict reconstruction, external intervention, civil-society development, or human-rights protection in African
settings. Sources lacking analytical depth, empirical evidence, or clear thematic relevance were excluded.
This sampling ensured that the analysis captured both academic and practitioner perspectives, enabling
triangulation between theoretical discourse and applied policy experience.
Analytical Stages
The analytical procedure unfolded in four interrelated stages:
1. Thematic Coding:
Each document was read line-by-line and coded according to the study’s four theoretical lenses.
Constructivist codes included “norm diffusion,” “identity reconstruction,” and “legitimacy narratives.”
Liberal-peace codes captured “democratization,” “institutional reform,” and “rights promotion.”
Dependency codes identified “donor dominance,” “conditionality,” and “economic asymmetry.”
Security-development codes highlighted “stabilization,” “militarization of aid,” and “peacebuilding-
security overlap.”
2. Interpretive Clustering:
Related codes were organized into broader analytical categories such as external legitimization, civil-society
instrumentalization, and rights localization to reveal recurring mechanisms of influence across contexts.
3. Discourse Mapping:
Drawing on interpretive discourse analysis, the study examined how external actors frame their interventions,
how African states and civil-society actors internalize or resist these narratives, and how such discourses
evolve over time in policy and practice.
4. Cross-Case Comparison:
Findings from individual cases-South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Mali, and Ethiopia
were compared to identify both shared structural patterns and context-specific deviations.
This stage provided vertical depth (within-case understanding) and horizontal comparability (across-case
synthesis).
Reliability, Validity, and Reflexivity
To ensure methodological rigor, the study employed data triangulation, cross-checking insights from academic,
institutional, and NGO sources. Reflexive memos were maintained throughout the analysis to document
interpretive decisions and minimize researcher bias. Conceptual validity was strengthened through transparent
linkage between theoretical categories and empirical illustrations, while reliability was supported by the
systematic and replicable coding sequence described above. Although the design is qualitative and interpretive
rather than statistical, its credibility rests on consistent procedures, explicit theoretical anchoring, and critical
reflection on the researcher’s positionality and epistemic standpoint.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5385 www.rsisinternational.org
Integration of Theory and Method
The study’s analytical design explicitly links theoretical constructs to methodological tools, as summarized in
the following table 3 and table 4.
Table 3: Theoretical Framework and Analytical Dimensions
Theoretical Lens Key Concepts Analytical Focus Expected Contribution
Constructivism
(V & A, 2016)
Norms, identities,
legitimacy, discourse
Examines how meanings of
peace, democracy, and rights
are socially constructed in post-
conflict settings
Reveals how external
norms shape domestic
narratives
Liberal Peace
(Gonzalez-Vicente,
2020)
Democratization,
market reforms,
institutionalism
Investigates donor-driven
governance and liberalization
processes
Highlights the normative
tension between
universalism and localism
Dependency
Theory (Harvold
Kvangraven, 2023)
Structural inequality,
conditionality, core-
periphery dynamics
Analyzes economic
dependency and policy
conditionalities
Exposes how interventions
reinforce asymmetrical
relationships
Security-
Development
Nexus (Walton &
Johnstone, 2024)
Stabilization,
humanitarian-security
overlap
Explores integration of
security, development, and
peacebuilding
Shows the securitization of
aid and policy priorities
Table 4: Methodological Integration
Methodological Tool Theoretical
Connection
Data Source Analytical Output
Thematic Coding (Ahmed
et al., 2025)
Constructivism, Liberal
Peace
Policy documents,
scholarly texts
Identification of recurring
normative themes
Comparative Case Study
(do Amaral, 2022)
Liberal Peace,
Dependency Theory
Multi-country case
analysis
Cross-contextual comparison
of intervention dynamics
Discourse Analysis (Saul,
2024)
Constructivism,
Security Nexus
UN resolutions,
donor narratives
Mapping power and
legitimacy discourses
Triangulation (Carter et al.,
2014)
All frameworks Scholarly and policy
synthesis
Validity and reliability of
findings
Validity, Reliability, and Reflexivity
To enhance validity and reliability, the study employs data triangulation by cross-verifying findings from
multiple data types and cases. Conceptual validity is strengthened by grounding empirical interpretation within
well-defined theoretical constructs. The researcher’s positionality is critically examined through reflexive
engagement, acknowledging potential interpretive biases that may arise when analyzing donor narratives or
African policy responses. Reflexivity ensures that the analysis remains sensitive to epistemic power relations
between Western and African sources of knowledge.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5386 www.rsisinternational.org
Ethical Considerations
Although the research relies on publicly available secondary data, ethical diligence is maintained by accurate
citation, transparent representation, and intellectual fairness to all perspectives. The study consciously integrates
African scholarly voices to avoid epistemic marginalization and challenges Eurocentric biases that often
dominate post-conflict discourse.
Limitations of the Study
Although this study provides a comprehensive analysis based on secondary qualitative sources, it is limited by
its reliance on published literature, policy reports, and institutional documents. The absence of primary field
data, interviews, or direct observation restricts the ability to verify how theoretical insights translate into on-the-
ground practices. Future research could strengthen empirical depth by triangulating secondary evidence with
qualitative interviews involving policymakers, civil society leaders, and community actors in selected post
conflict states. Such mixed method approaches would enhance contextual validity and allow for more nuanced
understanding of how external influence is experienced, negotiated, and internalized at the local level.
In summary, the methodology combines theoretical pluralism and interpretive rigor to capture the complex,
multilayered roles of external actors in post-conflict Africa. Through the integration of constructivist, liberal,
dependency, and security-development paradigms, the study achieves a balanced analytical framework that
transcends simplistic dichotomies of “donor versus recipient” or “North versus South.” Instead, it offers a
holistic, relational understanding of how external engagement both empowers and constrains civil society and
human rights protection in the fragile aftermath of conflict.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Overview of Emerging Patterns
The empirical analysis identifies four interrelated patterns through which external actors shape civil society and
human rights protection in post-conflict African contexts. These are normative diffusion and local contestation
grounded in constructivist understandings of global norm transmission; institutional engineering and aid
dependency influenced by liberal peacebuilding and dependency paradigms; securitization of development and
peacebuilding arising from the security development nexus; and resilience and adaptive agency of African civil
society reflecting the dynamic negotiation between external influence and local ownership.
These patterns interact simultaneously, often producing hybrid outcomes. Gains in human rights promotion
coexist with constraints on local autonomy, illustrating that external engagement in Africa’s post-conflict
reconstruction is neither wholly emancipatory nor entirely coercive but an ongoing process of negotiation.
Across the case studies, three overarching mechanisms emerge as the main channels of influence: financial,
normative, and coercive. These mechanisms work together to shape how civil society operates, adapts, or resists
external involvement. The sections that follow discuss each of the four analytical patterns in detail, drawing on
comparative evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo.
Constructivist Dynamics: Norm Diffusion and Local Contestation
From a constructivist perspective, external actors influence post-conflict African societies not only through
material resources or coercion but through the power to define legitimate forms of governance, justice, and
citizenship. Organizations such as the United Nations, the African Union, and the European Union often act as
promoters of universal frameworks of democracy, gender equality, and human rights.
In South Sudan, the United Nations Mission and international non-governmental organizations introduced rights-
based governance programs that emphasized gender inclusion and civic participation. Yet these frameworks
frequently clashed with traditional reconciliation practices such as the Beny-bith and Wunlit systems, forcing
local actors to reinterpret imported norms in culturally meaningful ways. This illustrates that global norms are
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5387 www.rsisinternational.org
rarely adopted in a uniform way. Instead, they are adapted, contested, or blended with indigenous systems to
create a locally legitimate form of practice.
A comparable process took place in Rwanda’s post-genocide reconstruction, where international donors
supported the Gacaca courts as a hybrid mechanism of justice. Although initially celebrated as a model of
restorative justice, the courts were later used by the state to consolidate political control and silence dissenting
voices. These cases show that while external engagement introduces universal ideas of rights and justice, their
success depends on how well they resonate with domestic traditions and power structures. Normative diffusion
therefore becomes a negotiated process where global standards are localized through reinterpretation and
resistance.
Liberal Peace and the Political Economy of Institutional Reconstruction
The liberal peace paradigm remains one of the most influential frameworks guiding international interventions
in Africa. It assumes that democratization, market reform, and civil society expansion will jointly produce peace
and stability. However, evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo shows that
such interventions often lead to the establishment of fragile, donor-dependent institutions.
In Liberia, the period after 2003 saw a large expansion of civil society organizations and non-governmental
actors, most of which relied heavily on donor funds. These organizations contributed significantly to civic
education and human rights awareness but their priorities gradually shifted to align with donor interests rather
than community needs. When donor funding declined, many of these organizations collapsed, revealing the
fragility of externally sustained civil society.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, donor support for governance reforms led to a situation where non-
governmental organizations effectively replaced state institutions in delivering services. This created parallel
systems that weakened public accountability and encouraged dependency on foreign assistance. These
experiences illustrate the core weakness of the liberal peace model: it focuses on institutional form rather than
local legitimacy. Elections and policy reforms have been introduced across several post-conflict states, but they
have not always produced inclusive participation or social cohesion.
The evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the DRC confirms that donor-driven liberalization can increase
civic activity in the short term but fails to ensure sustainable, autonomous institutions. Liberal peacebuilding
achieves stability only when local ownership and long-term capacity building are prioritized.
Dependency and Donor Conditionalities in Civil Society Development
Dependency theory offers a critical lens for understanding how external interventions can reinforce asymmetrical
relationships between donors and African states. In Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and Mozambique, civil society
organizations depend heavily on financial support from agencies such as USAID, DFID, and the European
Union. Donors frequently determine project priorities and accountability mechanisms, which leads local
organizations to focus on donor visibility rather than genuine community empowerment.
This project-based funding model replaces long-term social movements with short-term, quantifiable initiatives,
thereby fragmenting collective action. Accountability often shifts upward to donors instead of downward to local
constituencies. In Ethiopia, for instance, donor conditionalities led to a political backlash. The 2009 Charities
and Societies Proclamation restricted foreign-funded organizations from human rights advocacy, effectively
shrinking the civic space. This law, justified as a measure to protect national sovereignty, demonstrates the
paradox of external engagement. Efforts to promote human rights through conditional assistance can provoke
resistance from recipient governments and contribute to authoritarian consolidation.
Across Rwanda, Mozambique, and Ethiopia, dependence on foreign aid has made civil society vulnerable to
financial instability. Once donor cycles end, many organizations struggle to continue their operations. Empirical
studies in these countries indicate that over two-thirds of civil society budgets are externally sourced, leaving
limited room for domestic accountability or independent agenda setting. This confirms that aid dependency not
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5388 www.rsisinternational.org
only constrains autonomy but also depoliticizes activism by aligning it with technical donor frameworks rather
than grassroots struggles.
The Security–Development Nexus and the Militarization of Humanitarianism
A notable trend across recent African conflicts is the merging of security and development agendas. This process,
often referred to as the security–development nexus, has redefined post-conflict intervention. International actors
increasingly link humanitarian assistance with counterterrorism and stabilization objectives.
In Mali, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission and France’s Operation Barkhane
combined military and development mandates. This overlap blurred the neutrality of humanitarian aid and
limited the operational space for civil society organizations. Reports from human rights groups show that rights
defenders faced increasing risks as security operations intensified.
In Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado region, security assistance from international partners and private military
contractors was intended to contain insurgency but led to widespread human rights violations by both state forces
and insurgent groups. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented numerous cases of abuse,
illustrating how militarized assistance undermines the very protection it claims to advance.
Comparative evidence from Mali and Mozambique shows that securitized development programs often
correspond with declines in civil liberties. Data from regional human rights observatories reveal that countries
receiving large volumes of security-linked aid tend to experience a measurable contraction in civic space. These
findings suggest that when aid is tied too closely to security objectives, it weakens civil oversight and erodes
public trust in both domestic and international institutions.
Adaptive Agency and Local Ownership
Despite structural and political constraints, African civil society continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience.
The 2019 revolution in Sudan provides an illustrative example. Professional associations, youth groups, and
women’s movements worked together to organize peaceful protests that pressured the transitional regime toward
reform. These movements skillfully combined domestic mobilization with support from international advocacy
networks while maintaining their local legitimacy.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Catholic Lay Coordination Committee mobilized religious authority
and community credibility to demand electoral accountability. By merging faith-based moral principles with
international human rights advocacy, the movement achieved both local resonance and global attention.
These examples highlight a broader reality: civil society in Africa is not a passive recipient of external norms
but an active participant in shaping them. Local actors reinterpret and adapt global human rights ideas to fit their
cultural contexts. Their success demonstrates that sustainable human rights advocacy depends on a balance
between external support and indigenous legitimacy. When external norms are localized and rooted in
community structures, they become more resilient and socially acceptable.
Comparative Insights and Theoretical Integration
A comparative synthesis across all examined cases reveals that the influence of external actors is complex and
multidimensional. Civil society in post-conflict Africa is simultaneously empowered and constrained by external
engagement. The constructivist and dependency dimensions often intersect: civil society actors are normatively
influenced by global discourses while remaining materially dependent on donor resources.
In Rwanda and Ethiopia, externally guided peacebuilding achieved administrative stability but reduced political
pluralism. In contrast, Liberia and Sierra Leone experienced expanded civic participation but continued financial
dependency on external donors. These outcomes demonstrate that neither external imposition nor complete
autonomy alone guarantees sustainable rights protection. The key lies in negotiated partnerships that combine
international support with local ownership as discussed in the Table 5.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5389 www.rsisinternational.org
Table 5: The interaction of theoretical perspectives (Summary)
Relationship Analytical Insight
Constructivist
and Liberal
External norms are most effective when localized through inclusive dialogue and
institutional adaptation.
Liberal and
Dependency
Donor funding intended to empower civil society often reproduces structural inequality and
dependency.
Dependency
and Security
Militarized aid amplifies dependency and undermines accountability for rights violations.
Constructivist
and Agency
Local actors reinterpret external norms to create hybrid governance models that align with
domestic legitimacy.
To illustrate these patterns more concretely, Table 6 presents a comparative summary of how different external
mechanisms have shaped civil society outcomes in selected African post-conflict states.
Table 6. External Mechanisms and Civil Society Outcomes in Post-Conflict Africa
Country Dominant Mechanism Positive Impact Limiting Effect Overall Outcome
Rwanda Normative diffusion
(UN, EU, World Bank)
Governance rebuilding,
justice reform
Restricted pluralism,
limited NGO autonomy
Stable but tightly
controlled civic space
Liberia Financial assistance
(UNMIL, USA,
ECOWAS)
Peace consolidation,
civic expansion
Donor dependency,
limited sustainability
Empowered but
externally reliant civil
society
Sierra
Leone
Liberal peacebuilding
(UK, UNDP, DFID)
Rights awareness,
reconciliation
Elite capture, short
project cycles
Moderate progress,
fragile autonomy
Sudan Hybrid engagement
(AU, EU, Gulf States)
Civic mobilization,
transitional dialogue
Politicized justice,
fragmented
coordination
Transitional gains
under pressure
Ethiopia Donor conditionality
(UN, EU, USA)
Institutional reform,
early liberalization
Repressive NGO laws,
restricted advocacy
Narrowed civic space
Mali Security–development
nexus (France, EU, AU)
Stabilization,
governance support
Militarized aid, human
rights abuses
Security prioritized
over rights
Mozamb
ique
Coercive power (Private
contractors)
Short-term security,
international attention
Civilian abuse, weak
oversight
Humanitarian
compromise
This synthesis shows that external engagement produces both opportunities and constraints. While external
actors can enable post-conflict recovery and human rights protection, they can also deepen dependency and
undermine autonomy when interventions prioritize external visibility over local participation.
Implications for Policy and Theory
The evidence presented in this study demonstrates that the sustainability of human rights protection and civil
society strengthening depends on local ownership, long-term partnership, and contextual legitimacy.
Theoretically, the findings support a hybrid constructivist and dependency model of post-conflict reconstruction,
suggesting that peace and rights are co-produced through unequal but interactive relationships between domestic
and external actors.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5390 www.rsisinternational.org
For external engagement to contribute meaningfully to lasting peace, several measures are necessary. Funding
should be directed to local organizations rather than intermediary agencies to ensure genuine participation and
sustainability. Human rights oversight must be built into all security and peacekeeping operations to prevent
abuse. Rights programming should integrate traditional and formal justice systems to reflect local values.
Regional organizations such as the African Union and ECOWAS should play stronger coordinating roles to
promote Africa-led solutions.
Collectively, these findings indicate that post-conflict reconstruction is most effective when international actors
act as facilitators rather than directors. External engagement should support, not substitute, local agency. When
global norms are grounded in local realities, civil society becomes both autonomous and resilient, transforming
external assistance from dependency into partnership.
CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Conclusion
The study concludes that the role of external actors in shaping civil society and human rights protection in post-
conflict Africa is both transformative and paradoxical. External engagement has contributed significantly to
rebuilding governance institutions, strengthening rights discourse, and empowering civic participation. Yet it has
also entrenched financial dependency, reproduced asymmetrical power relations, and limited local agency.
The research demonstrates that the influence of external actors unfolds across four interdependent dimensions:
constructivist norm diffusion, liberal peace institutionalism, aid dependency, and the security–development
nexus. Each dimension affects civil society and human rights outcomes in distinctive ways, but their combined
effect determines whether post-conflict reconstruction strengthens or undermines sustainable governance.
Through a constructivist lens, the study shows that norms of democracy, human rights, and rule of law are not
simply transmitted but are localized through negotiation and adaptation. In contexts such as South Sudan,
Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, global frameworks were accepted selectively, reshaped through domestic institutions,
and embedded within local social practices. The liberal peace framework demonstrates that although
democratization and civil society promotion are vital to peacebuilding, externally engineered institutions often
lack contextual legitimacy. Cases from Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo reveal that procedural
democracy without inclusive governance risks reproducing the inequalities that caused conflict in the first place.
From the perspective of dependency theory, post-conflict aid regimes frequently perpetuate structural inequality.
Donor agendas and funding conditionalities constrain the autonomy of civil society, transforming many
organizations into extensions of foreign policy objectives. In Ethiopia and Rwanda, donor pressure for reform
provoked restrictive legislation that narrowed civic space and weakened human rights advocacy.
The security development nexus further complicates this picture. The merging of humanitarian and
counterterrorism objectives, observed in Mali and Mozambique, has blurred the boundary between
peacebuilding and militarization. Civil society independence and human rights accountability are often
subordinated to stabilization priorities, reducing public trust in both international and domestic institutions.
Overall, the findings indicate that post-conflict reconstruction in Africa is a process of co-construction between
global and local actors. Sustainable peace and human rights protection emerge not from external blueprints but
from negotiated partnerships grounded in mutual accountability, contextual legitimacy, and local agency.
Policy Recommendations
Drawing on both theoretical insights and comparative evidence, the study proposes several policy directions that
can strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of external engagement in post-conflict Africa. The
recommendations are summarized in Table 7 and elaborated below.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5391 www.rsisinternational.org
Table 7. Policy Areas, Key Recommendations, and Intended Impacts
Policy Area Recommendation Intended Impact
Civil Society
Empowerment
Provide direct funding to grassroots and
community-based organizations instead of
channeling resources primarily through large
intermediaries or international NGOs.
Enhances sustainability,
strengthens local legitimacy, and
ensures community participation in
reconstruction.
Human Rights
Protection
Integrate customary and indigenous justice
systems within national human rights and
transitional justice frameworks.
Promotes cultural resonance and
improves long-term institutional
acceptance.
Governance and
Aid Dependency
Reorient donor programs toward co-creation
partnerships that emphasize capacity exchange and
mutual accountability rather than conditionality.
Reduces dependency and fosters
shared ownership of development
outcomes.
Security and
Peacebuilding
Incorporate human rights monitoring and civic
oversight mechanisms within peacekeeping,
stabilization, and counterterrorism operations.
Prevents securitized aid from
undermining civil liberties and
civic participation.
Regional
Ownership
Strengthen the mandates and resources of African-
led mechanisms such as the African Union Peace
and Security Council and ECOWAS mediation
frameworks.
Promotes context-specific,
continent-driven peacebuilding
agendas.
These recommendations converge on one principle: external engagement must shift from short-term project
cycles to long-term, participatory partnerships. Development partners should adopt adaptive programming that
evolves with local priorities rather than imposing fixed templates. Donors and African governments should
jointly establish participatory monitoring frameworks involving civil society, state actors, and regional bodies to
ensure transparency in the use of external assistance.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The study advances a hybrid constructivist–dependency model of post-conflict reconstruction. This model
acknowledges that peace and human rights are co-produced through the interaction of ideas and resources in
contexts marked by asymmetry. It challenges the binary view of “external imposition versus local ownership”
by revealing how both are continually negotiated.
Theoretically, the research contributes to the growing literature on norm localization, hybrid peacebuilding, and
postcolonial international relations. It demonstrates that post-conflict transitions in Africa cannot be understood
solely through Western frameworks but require recognition of African agency and epistemic diversity.
Practically, the findings call for a paradigm shift in international engagement. External actors should invest in
building long-term institutional capacity and local knowledge systems rather than focusing exclusively on short-
term stability. Donors should also prioritize participatory evaluation, ensuring that communities influence how
success is defined and measured.
Directions for Future Research
While this study provides an integrated analysis across multiple African cases, further empirical research is
needed to deepen understanding of how external and local dynamics evolve over time. Future studies could
pursue the following directions:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5392 www.rsisinternational.org
1. Comparative longitudinal analysis to assess how external influence changes over different phases of post-
conflict reconstruction and peace consolidation.
2. Network mapping of donor–civil society relationships to identify funding patterns and dependencies at
both regional and national levels.
3. Ethnographic research exploring how local activists, community leaders, and traditional institutions
interpret and apply human rights norms in everyday life.
4. Regional institutional studies examining how African Union and ECOWAS frameworks mediate the
balance between sovereignty and external engagement.
5. Impact evaluations of security-sector reform and peacekeeping operations to measure their long-term
effects on human rights protection and civic participation.
Such research would contribute to refining theoretical debates around norm diffusion, dependency, and hybrid
governance while providing practical insights for designing inclusive and accountable peacebuilding strategies.
Final Reflection
Africa’s post-conflict transitions reveal that sustainable peace cannot be externally imposed. It must grow from
within through inclusive governance, equitable participation, and legitimate institutions. External actors remain
essential partners, but their greatest contribution lies in facilitating rather than directing change.
The future of peacebuilding and human rights protection in Africa depends on the continent’s ability to balance
external assistance with local agency. When international engagement supports rather than substitutes local
ownership, civil society can evolve from dependency into empowerment. In this transformation, Africa’s diverse
traditions of resilience, reconciliation, and justice provide not only the foundation for durable peace but also
valuable lessons for global peacebuilding practice. Ultimately, Africa’s post-conflict reconstruction will succeed
when external assistance evolves from conditional aid into equitable partnership rooted in African agency.˙
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author sincerely acknowledges the Almighty God for His divine guidance, strength, and protection
throughout the course of this research. Deep appreciation is extended to the faculty and staff of the Department
of Political Science, University of Ghana, for their academic mentorship and institutional support. Special
gratitude goes to scholars and practitioners whose works and insights informed the conceptual development of
this study. Heartfelt thanks are also due to family and friends for their continuous encouragement, understanding,
and moral support during the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical Approval: This study relied solely on secondary sources, including published academic works,
policy reports, and institutional documents. Therefore, it did not involve direct human participation and
did not require formal ethical approval. Nevertheless, the research adhered to the highest ethical standards
of integrity, proper citation, and intellectual honesty.
Conflict of Interest: The author declares that there is no conflict of interest related to this research. The
study was conducted independently, without any external influence on its design, analysis, or
conclusions.
Data Availability
The data supporting this study consist of publicly available academic literature, policy reports, and institutional
documents cited within the manuscript. No proprietary or confidential data were used. Additional reference
materials or synthesized datasets generated during the analysis can be made available upon reasonable request.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5393 www.rsisinternational.org
REFERENCES
1. Ahmed, S. K., Mohammed, R. A., Nashwan, A. J., Ibrahim, R. H., Abdalla, A. Q., M. Ameen, B. M.,
& Khdhir, R. M. (2025). Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery,
and Public Health, 6, 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198
2. Alaka, O. (2025). Post-Sovereignty vs Postcolonialism: A Business Philosopher’s Perspective on
African Political and Economic Autonomy. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5374125
3. Andonova, L. B., & Piselli, D. (2022). Transnational partnerships, domestic institutions, and
sustainable development. The case of Brazil and the Amazon Region Protected Areas program. World
Development, 157, 105809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105809
4. Aslam, G., Grandvoinnet, H., Rusten, C., Boekman, S., & Van Wicklin, W. (2015). Social
Accountability in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations. In Opening the Black Box: The Contextual
Drivers of Social Accountability (pp. 193–228). The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-
0481-6_ch6
5. Atkinson, P. (2008). Liberal interventionism in Liberia: Towards a tentatively just approach? Conflict,
Security & Development, 8(1), 15–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678800801977062
6. Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for
Comfort? World Development, 66, 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.028
7. Benjaminsen, T. A., & Ba, B. (2024). A moral economy of pastoralists? Understanding the ‘jihadist’
insurgency in Mali. Political Geography, 113, 103149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103149
8. Bindi, I. T., & Tufekci, O. (2018). Liberal Peacebuilding in Sierra Leone: A Critical Exploration.
Journal of Asian and African Studies, 53(8), 1158–1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909618776427
9. Brice, T. F. L., Kotchaphop, K., & Juan, P. S. (2025). An Alternative to the Liberal World Order: China,
BRICS, and Middle East Diplomacy. Jurnal of Middle East and Islamic Studies, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.7454/meis.v12i1.197
10. Browne, S. (2012). Aid and Influence. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849770453
11. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The Use of
Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.
https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
12. Chandler, D. (2007). The security–development nexus and the rise of ‘anti-foreign policy.’ Journal of
International Relations and Development, 10(4), 362–386.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800135
13. COOPER, N., TURNER, M., & PUGH, M. (2011). The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder:
a reply to Roland Paris. Review of International Studies, 37(4), 1995–2007.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000143
14. Craig, V., Erwin, van, & Veen, L. D. (2015). Achieving security progress in post-conflict contexts:
Between liberal peacebuilding and elite interests.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833207_Achieving_security_progress_in_post-
conflict_contexts_Between_liberal_peacebuilding_and_elite_interests
15. Dawit, N., & Yohannes, N. (2023). The Humanitarian Crisis In Ethiopia’s Tigray Region: A Systematic
Review.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371612974_The_Humanitarian_Crisis_In_Ethiopia’s_Tigra
y_Region_A_Systematic_Review
16. do Amaral, M. P. (2022). Comparative Case Studies: Methodological Discussion (pp. 41–60).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96454-2_3
17. Duursma, A., Bara, C., Wilén, N., Hellmüller, S., Karlsrud, J., Oksamytna, K., Bruker, J., Campbell,
S., Cusimano, S., Donati, M., Dorussen, H., Druet, D., Geier, V., Epiney, M., Geier, V., Gelot, L.,
Gyllensporre, D., Hiensch, A., Hultman, L., … Wenger, A. (2023). UN Peacekeeping at 75:
Achievements, Challenges, and Prospects. International Peacekeeping, 30(4), 415–476.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2023.2263178
18. Dzinesa, G. Albert., & Curtis, Devon. (2012). Peacebuilding, power, and politics in Africa. Ohio
University Press.
19. Ekiyor, T. (n.d.). The role of civil society in conflict prevention : West African experiences.
https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18553105
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5394 www.rsisinternational.org
20. Elnour, A. (n.d.). A comparative analysis of the role of foreign aid in post-conflict A comparative
analysis of the role of foreign aid in post-conflict reconstruction of Rwanda and Sierra Leone
reconstruction of Rwanda and Sierra Leone. https://fount.aucegypt.edu/about.html.
21. Faust, J., Grävingholt, J., & Ziaja, S. (2015). Foreign aid and the fragile consensus on state fragility.
Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(4), 407–427.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.23
22. Fentahun, G. (2023). Foreign aid in the post-colonial Africa: Means for building democracy or ensuring
Western domination? Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2241257
23. Finkenbusch, P. (2021). Liberal peace: from civilising mission to self-doubt. Global Change, Peace &
Security, 33(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781158.2021.1932783
24. Fitriani, H. (2024). Impact of Foreign Aid on Economic Development: A Critical Literature Review.
Advances: Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.60079/ajeb.v2i2.226
25. Gabel, S. G., & NingningYang. (2022). Transnational Advocacy at the United Nations for Social
Workers. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 7(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-
022-00216-1
26. Gonzalez-Vicente, R. (2020). The liberal peace fallacy: violent neoliberalism and the temporal and
spatial traps of state-based approaches to peace. Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(1), 100–116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.1550012
27. Haavik, V., Bøås, M., & Iocchi, A. (2022). The End of Stability – How Burkina Faso Fell Apart. African
Security, 15(4), 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392206.2022.2128614
28. Harvold Kvangraven, I. (2023). Dependency theory: strengths, weaknesses, and its relevance today. In
A Modern Guide to Uneven Economic Development (pp. 147–170). Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788976541.00013
29. Ismail, Olawale., & Sköns, Elisabeth. (2014). Security activities of external actors in Africa. Oxford
University Press.
30. ISS Today. (2021). Mercenaries and private military security: Africa’s thin grey line.
https://issafrica.org/iss-today/mercenaries-and-private-military-security-africas-thin-grey-line
31. Jalale, G. B. (2024). The Sahel: A Deadly New Era in the Decades-long Conflict.
https://acleddata.com/report/conflict-watchlist-2024-sahel-deadly-new-era-decades-long-conflict
32. John, R. A., & Joyce, M. (2014). Perpetuation of instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
When the Kivus sneeze, Kinshasa catches a cold.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278624263_Perpetuation_of_instability_in_the_Democratic
_Republic_of_the_Congo_When_the_Kivus_sneeze_Kinshasa_catches_a_cold
33. Karim, M. F. (2025). Non-Western Middle Powers in Changing Global Order. In Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.854
34. Karlsrud, J. (2023). ‘Pragmatic Peacekeeping’ in Practice: Exit Liberal Peacekeeping, Enter UN
Support Missions? Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 17(3), 258–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2023.2198285
35. Kidane Kiros. (2024). THE ONGOING WAR IN SUDAN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE HORN OF AFRICA AND BEYOND KIDANE KIROS.
36. Kobayashi, K., Krause, K., & Yuan, X. (2025). (Re)Setting the boundaries of peacebuilding in a
changing global order. Contemporary Security Policy, 46(2), 226–252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2025.2466287
37. Kristoffer, L. (2015). Peace, Self-Governance and International Engagement: From Neo-Colonial to
Postcolonial Peacebuilding. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1575.1521
38. Kumi, E., Osei, D. B., & Tsiboe-Darko, A. (2025). Understanding local NGOs’ sustainability in Ghana:
does organisational capacity and scope matter? Journal of Civil Society, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2025.2547662
39. Kurtz, G. (2024). Power Relations in Sudan after the Fall of Bashir. From Revolution to War.
40. Maigari, M. A. (2022). The role of civil society organisations in peacebuilding in post-conflict society:
Kenya and Nigeria. Global Journal of Sociology: Current Issues, 12(1), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.18844/gjs.v12i1.6594
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5395 www.rsisinternational.org
41. McCandless, E., & Donais, T. (2020). Generations of Constructing Peace. In Peacebuilding Paradigms
(pp. 126–144). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108652162.008
42. McGrath, M., Kurt, G., Davis, E., Lekkeh, S. A., Beetar, A., Mozumder, M. K., Almeamari, F.,
Rosenbaum, S., & Wells, R. (2025). The localisation of humanitarian response to conflict and
displacement: a scoping review from a health systems perspective. BMJ Global Health, 10(9), e018331.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018331
43. Mohamed, G. (2025, March). African Union peacekeepers in Somalia accused of widespread abuse.
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2025/03/12/african-union-peacekeepers-somalia-
accused-widespread-abuse
44. Nelson-Richards, M. (n.d.). Youth in Post-Conflict Africa: Community-Based Rehabilitation,
Rebuilding and Reconstruction of Society Organized by the United Nations Office of the Special
Adviser on Africa (OSAA) in collaboration with the United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs (DESA) 2 Youth in Post-Conflict Africa: Community-Based Rehabilitation, Rebuilding
and Reconstruction of Society 1.
45. Nyirenda, C. (n.d.). Imperialism and the Relevance of Constructivism in International Relations Pg.
|IDRJ, 2(2), 2025. https://doi.org/10.56279/KOBH6263
46. Och, M. (2018). The local diffusion of international human rights norms – understanding the cities for
CEDAW campaign. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 20(3), 425–443.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2018.1447312
47. Offiong Duke, O., & David Agbaji, D. (2018). Understanding Conflict Trends in Africa: A Peer into
the Psychocultural Conflict Perspective. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2018/v1i213049
48. Opongo, E. O. (2021). Transitional justice discourse in post-conflict societies in Africa: introduction.
Journal of the British Academy, 9(S2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/009s2.001
49. Pacheco, F., Jao, M., De, T., Cravo, A., & Schiefer, U. (n.d.). The Role of External Development Actors
in Post-Conflict Scenarios Oficina do CES n.o 258 Setembro de 2006.
50. PARIS, R. (2010). Saving liberal peacebuilding. Review of International Studies, 36(2), 337–365.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510000057
51. Parks, T. (2008). The rise and fall of donor funding for advocacy NGOs: understanding the impact.
Development in Practice, 18(2), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520801899036
52. Rataski, N. (2011). Legal Coordination of NGOs in Times of Crisis: The Role of NGOs During and
After the Rwandan Genocide. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1768240
53. Richmond, O. P. (2006). The problem of peace: understanding the ‘liberal peace.’ Conflict, Security &
Development, 6(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678800600933480
54. Roggeband, C., & Krizsán, A. (2021). The Selective Closure of Civic Space. Global Policy, 12(S5),
23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12973
55. Sambo, M. F. (2024). Autocratisation and Peacebuilding in Mozambique (2012–2019): Towards
Illiberal Peace? Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 19(1), 78–94.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15423166231220713
56. Saul, M. (2024). Introducing Discourse Analysis for Qualitative Research.
57. Sharma, A. (n.d.). Effect of Foreign Aid on Political Stability in Developing Nations.
https://doi.org/10.47672/ajir.2446
58. Uvin, P. (1999). Development Aid and Structural Violence: The case of Rwanda. Development, 42(3),
49–56. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1110060
59. Uwaliraye, P., Lyle, V., Mwanza, J., Biraro, G., Earle, A. J., & Gatome-Munyua, A. (2024). Rwanda’s
Single Project Implementation Unit: An Effective Donor Coordination Platform in the Journey to
Achieving Universal Health Coverage. Health Systems & Reform, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2024.2403527
60. V, D., & A, Y. (2016). Constructivism: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Arts and Social Sciences
Journal, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000200
61. Voloshchuk, O., Kolesnyk, V., & Hetmantsev, M. (2021). Human rights violations and genocide:
Lessons of Rwanda. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 10(40), 123–131.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.40.04.13
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5396 www.rsisinternational.org
62. Walton, O., & Johnstone, A. (2024). The fragmentation of the security-development nexus: the UK
government’s approach to security and development 2015-2022. Peacebuilding, 12(3), 429–444.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2023.2291920
63. Wiesner, C. (2022). Doing qualitative and interpretative research: reflecting principles and principled
challenges. Political Research Exchange, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2127372
64. Woldetsadik, M. K. (2019). Conflict analysis of Liberia’s civil wars (1989-2003). Skhid, 0(6(158)),
63–68. https://doi.org/10.21847/1728-9343.2018.6(158).154894
65. World Peace Foundation. (2024). The impacts of militarized foreign policy in the MENA region.
https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/militarized-foreign-policy-mena/