Search

The relationship between security and development has been a longstanding issue in Brazil. Far before Western literature raised the topic in development circles, Brazilian elites had already viewed security and development as intertwined concepts, placing the military as a key agent in providing several public policies over the 20th century. Even after a 21-year-long military authoritarian regime, this view continues to affect a myriad of dimensions of social and political life—such as civil-military relations, foreign policy, peacekeeping operations, internal security, and social policy. Thus, the goal of this Special Issue is to discuss the formation and effects of the Brazilian version of the security-development nexus. Articles will tackle the following questions: (1) How do the range and scope of security and defence concepts and military missions affect development policies and vice-versa? (2) How do military missions supporting national development and internal security affect the security sector and civil-military relations? (3) How does the military in Brazil translate this mentality of the security-development nexus into international relations? (4) What insights does the case of Brazil offer to the literature on the security-development nexus? By analysing the Brazilian experience, we hope to contribute to advance knowledge on the security-development nexus and reflect on the long-term effects of placing the military at the centre of public policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the relationship between national security policymaking and the defence sector. The goal is to understand how a lack of attention to national security policymaking affects the defence sector and vice-versa using Brazil as a case study. Our main argument is that a lack of attention in national security policymaking by civilian elites can weaken political controls over the armed forces, inhibit effective defence reforms that challenge military prerogatives, and, over time, reinforce militarization in national security policymaking, especially in its three main pillars: defence, intelligence, and public safety. We call this process national security neglect. Our case study shows that as internal security challenges grew in complexity, civilian political elites pushed the military to dealing with public safety, border security, and national security policymaking. Civilians also delegated civilian posts to the armed forces in defence, public safety and intelligence, instead of engaging in broader reforms. This led to a vicious cycle of military dependency, deteriorated the already fragile political controls over the armed forces, inhibited defence reforms, and increased the military role in the state and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]