The State Should Be Protected from Internal and External Threats - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction If the becomes a major source of threat to its citizens, does it thereby undermine the prime justification for its existence? This is the question we need to ponder over bearing in mind the gross human atrocities conducted by the state in the name of ‘state security’. Many nations under colonialism fought hard to gain independence and attain state or nation sovereignty and are accompanied by a well thought out constitution that guarantees citizens rights and protections under the law and as such the state assumes the role of offering security to its citizens. The constitution as put forward by Hobbes is a social contract between the people and the state that legitimizes the government in place. Once the contract is broken, it is only necessary to overthrow the existing government and install one that would serve citizen interests (Booth, 2007). Some questions that need answering are; what is security? For whom? What are the security issues? It is important to understand these questions to be able to evaluate whether the state which is supposed to protect security has become itself a source of insecurity to its citizens and whether it should lose its mandate to govern or lose its justification for its existence. In order to achieve this, the paper will be divided into three sections. The first section will discuss what security is. The second section will discuss whose security it should be for, is it the state or individual and implications on legitimacy of state. This will involve considering different views from realists, constructivists, critical studies, feminism, peace research and the Copenhagen school of thought. It will argue that security is socially constructed thus means different things to different people. This in turn affects how people understand the role of the state to be and whether it is legitimate. The last section will be the conclusion. International security studies is a discipline that has evolved over the years dealing with security issues in a global arena. It depends on the definition put forward regarding security since various theorists have not been able to come up with a uniform definition. According to Buzan (1983) a legitimate state is one that meets the needs and wishes of its citizens including security, conflict resolution, economic development and peace. It is not uncommon to hear governments implying that they are doing certain things such as curtailing people’s freedom for state security reasons. Williams (2012:3) asserts that individuals are “killed, starved, tortured, raped, impoverished, denied education and healthcare all in the name of security.” This is especially so in war torn countries such as Syria (Paul, 1990). So what is security and who determines what security issues are? According to Booth (1997: 104-119) security is a derivative concept and as such its understanding derives from political outlook and philosophical worldview. For example, for ethico-political view security could include everything and anything depending on policy agenda while for analysts, use of empirical evidence frames issues such as diseases as global security issues. Williams (2012:5) defines security as “alleviation of threats to cherished values.” It is therefore, based on emancipation though justice and human rights. Security can also be positive or negative; negative security implies absence of threat whereas positive security implies “making things possible” (p.6). For Buzan and Hansen (2009: 9) security is about “political themes such as state, authority, legitimacy, politics and sovereignty.” The next question that needs understanding is whose security? Different theorists have different opinions regarding the referent object or for whom security is meant to be. For realists, the state is the referent object (Buzan & Hansen, 2009). Issues of security are thus aimed at addressing the internal and external threats to the state. It then implies that ensuring the security of the state is equivalent to protecting other referents in the state such as individuals. The security issues are also concerned with whether to expand security beyond military security; for example, to other areas such as environment, economic security, gender issues (p. 12). For realists there is no other better alternative than the state to protect citizens through its security policies. The legitimacy of the state is its ability to rule according to values, interests and identity of the people (p. 27). The problem with this theory is that it fails to recognise that different groups of people such as individuals, politicians, civil society and other organisations have different values and interests. So whose interests is it supposed to serve? This would mean if it serves the interests of politicians then it is legitimate and that is why governments like Syria uses repressive means such as torture to curb opposition and protect the interests of ruling class. It would then be crucial for the state to only protect shared values and interests for the common good of all otherwise such a state undermines its justification for existence. The opponents of this view would argue that states are too weak to protect citizens and most of them often threaten own citizens by making harmful decisions (Buzen & Hansen, 25). So what happens to a state that constantly exposes itself to external threats and does not offer security to its citizens; rather, it is a source of threat to them. For example, Syria after independence in 1946 sought to protect human rights of its citizens but what has been happening over the years is gross violation of human rights. The government is ruled by one party and its leadership is bent on retaining power thus threatening and suppressing the opposition through arrests without charge, torture as means of interrogation, imprisonment without trial, and massacres on citizens (Paul, 1990: 1-11). In the name of state security, Syria often declares a state of emergency to suppress any domestic opposition. According to critical security studies the individuals should be the referent for security as states are unreliable providers of security (Williams, 2012). This involves considering the experiences of individuals in the system and using them to inform formulation of security policies. Taking individuals as referents of security, it therefore means that the individuals have liberty to remove the government from power if it is not performing its role. However, taking this route would be not satisfactory as security does not always depend on the state. According to Buzan (1983) although states are supposed to guarantee the security of citizens, this is not always the case in real life as international security is dependent on the international system. For example, even if the Syrian government wants to protect its citizens from threats external factors such as instability in surrounding countries may hinder the state from carrying out this role. On the other hand, according to constructivists the choice of offensive or defensive doctrines depends on the state (Buzan & Hansen, 2009). A state can choose to use peaceful means to deal with external threats or be an aggressor and expose the citizens to external threats. In such case, it undermines its reason for existence. The feminists delve into the experiences of those who suffer most during war or periods of insecurity and these are women. As such, security should focus on gender or minorities as the referent objects. Women are raped, sexually harassed, engaged in prostitution and are depended upon by military bases (Enloe, 2004; Tickner, 2001). If the security of women cannot be guaranteed, then the state is not justified to be in existence. The peace research studies would consider use of weapons as the referent objects since they are the ones that destroy humankind (Buzan & Hansen, 2009). However, realists would argue that disarming states would make them vulnerable to external threats and diminish their ability to protect citizens. This prompts the question whether the state then should be allowed to manufacture weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear and biological weapons and become a threat to citizens. If such is allowed to happen, then the state loses its mandate to protect citizens. Conclusion The state is very crucial in protecting the rights or security of its citizens if it has to have legitimacy. However, some states instead of protecting citizens against threats end up being the source of threat to citizens. The state should be protected from internal and external threats so that it can be able to protect other referents in the system. However, as much as states use ‘state security’ as justification to threaten its citizens and repress domestic opposition this is unacceptable and such a state is not justified to exist. References Booth, Ken (2007) Theory of World Security. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Buzan, Barry (1983) People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Buzan, Barry and Hansen Lene (2009) The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Enloe, Cynthia (2004) The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in the New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Paul, James A (1990) Human Rights in Syria. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch Tickner, J. Ann (2001) Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era, New York: Columbia University Press. Williams, Paul D (ed) (2012) Security Studies: An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Read More