THE AXIOLOGY OF PEACEBUILDING RECALIBRATING THE DEVELOPMENTAL-GOVERNANCE NEXUS IN POST-KINETIC SECURITY ARCHITECTURES

Abstract

Post-conflict states frequently relapse into violence not because ceasefires fail, but because governance remains philosophically unchanged. Contemporary peacebuilding frameworks influenced by "liberal peace" orthodoxy treat peace as a technical problem solvable through elections and market reforms. However, recurrence of conflict in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East suggests an epistemological misdiagnosis: peace has been treated as the absence of violence rather than the presence of value-based governance. This article argues that durable peace is axiological before it is institutional; stability depends on the hierarchy of values embedded in public policy. The "post-kinetic" era requires a recalibration of the developmental-governance nexus, as development programs lacking conflict-sensitivity often exacerbate ethnic competition and distributive anxieties. To address this, the article proposes elevating National Peace Institutions (NPIs) from advisory entities to statutory "Policy Governors." These bodies would possess the legally entrenched authority to conduct Peace Impact Assessments (PIAs) and veto conflict-generating policies. This transformation requires legislative anchoring, fiscal autonomy, and decentralized subsidiarity. By embedding peace as a constitutional value rather than an operational objective, post-conflict states can move beyond security-centric stabilization toward value-based governance architectures. Peacekeeping may open the gate, but only axiological governance can inhabit the house.