Politicisation and securitisation in a hegemonic state : the case of Singapore
The conventional understanding of Barry Buzan and Ole Waever’s securitisation theory is that their paradigm is charactetised by certain elements of politicisation and consensus- building — both of which must be necessarily undertaken in a particular sequence of stages for the paradigm to be validate...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Theses and Dissertations |
| Published: |
2008
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10356/14333 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
| Summary: | The conventional understanding of Barry Buzan and Ole Waever’s securitisation theory is that their paradigm is charactetised by certain elements of politicisation and consensus- building — both of which must be necessarily undertaken in a particular sequence of stages for the paradigm to be validated. As such, the dominant operationalisation of the theory has been either from the presumption that securitisation is characterised only by this particular sequence of stages, or alternatively, that only this distinct trajectory is evident of ‘proper’ secutitisation. This works explores the possibility that securitisation may be charactetised by more than one possible sequence of stages. It argues that so long as those elements of politicisation and consensus-building exist at some stage within the paradigm, the sequences of these stages is of less significance. |
|---|