As a consequence of the popularity of integrated and nationally owned peace processes, aligning external actors to a national peacebuilding strategy has become part of the recipe for success. Using the case of Sierra Leone, this article engages with the question of what constructing such unified peacebuilding agenda in fragile states means politically. Contrasting the purpose of peacebuilding with the practices through which it is carried out, the article argues that the implementation of a unified peacebuilding agenda to a large extent undermines the liberal pretences of peacebuilding. While the integration of government, civil society and donors works to portray a more ordered society in countries where the lack of such order has been a manifest security problem, it also works to undermine the crucial autonomy of and accountability between them.