Can Security and Democracy Co-Exist - Coursework Example

Lecturer Security and Democracy Democracy has long been held to be a pathway of enhancing security through improvement of development and reduction of inequalities. The assumption is that democracy enhances wider participation of the society in decision making (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 5) leading to stability of communities and countries through avoidance of cases of insecurity as the oppressed seek to get what they perceive as their rights from their oppressors. Accordingly, many countries in the west saw the collapse of communism in the 1990s as a manifestation of democracy triumphing over communism which is anchored on the oppression of the majority. However, we have countless cases around the world whereby the democratic countries tend to be unstable, beset by cycles of conflicts while those that are led by despots seems to be enjoy relative peace. For instance, drug lords are taking over some southern America countries such as Guatemala and Mexico, making parts of those countries insecure even though regular elections, a key demand for democracy, are held regularly. Clearly, the democratic governments in most of these countries have failed to enhance security in their states. On the other hand, countries lambasted for having failed the democratic test such as Cuba and swathes of nations in the Arab world, never known to hold elections to choose leaders, are relatively calm with very low levels of crime. This leads us to ask a critical question; can a nation have security and democracy at the same time? This paper is going to question whether it is possible for a country to have it both ways. Though interrogating vast academic sources, the paper will argue that it is not possible to have democracy and security at the same time. Specific reference to popular culture will be made so as to better explain the case in point. Popular Culture Popular culture can be broadly be defined as the aggregate of cultural products such as music, art, literature, fashion, dance, television and film that is primarily consumed by the non-elite portion of the society (Crossman; Osborn 3). Non-elitist group of the society are mainly the downtrodden or the class that does not control power and the economic power of the society. These are the labourers, the middle and the lower class in the society. According to Crossman, popular culture can be viewed from two dimensions. The first one is that popular culture is a tool used by the elites to control those below them. According to this view of popular culture, the elites tend to control media outlets and the culture itself. For instance, according to Smith and Choueiti only six of the one hundred top-grossing films of 2008 had a black director. This is important observation because films with black directors also tend to have a higher representation of their racial origins. For instance, in the same study by Smith and Choueiti, in the six films with black directors, 62.6 percent of roles were played by blacks compared to 10.9 percent of roles played by blacks in films without black director. Kidd also observes that of the 1,349 tv stations in the United States as of 2006, only 3.26 percent were owned by the minorities compared to 76.58 per cent owbned by the whites. Therefore, the majority can use their influence to dull the minds of the majority who are below them, so that they become amenable to control (Crossman). It is possible to see why the elites would want to control the other groups of the society. The easier one to pick out is that the other groups in the society might feel exploited and rise up to overthrow the status quo and demand their rightful place in the society. Should this happen, the elites stand to lose their huge investments, and therefore practically, they live in fear, and thus must do all they can to control the non elites. Another reason fro the popular culture is that popular culture is a vehicle of rebellion against dominance. Borrowing from the history of the United States, where popular culture was largely associated with the black, the oppression by the culture of the dominant group is normally to proportions that cannot be tolerated. As a result, popular culture coalesce those dominated and downtrodden so that they can pose a unified front against their oppressors. Therefore, popular culture gives them an avenue to hit back at their circumstances; it gives them hope of a better future and can also be used as a basis of revolution. It is this second dimension that is of relevance to us in this paper. It shows us that popular culture serves a wider purpose that goes beyond entertainment. It gives the downtrodden, those forgotten by the leadership, a stage whereby they can air their grievances and even challenge authority. And this is important because it directly touches on the issue of security because as the downtrodden rise or makes attempts to rise, in most instances it will lead to a cycles of violence and loss of lives and property on both sides of the divide. Another way of looking at it is when this non elitist group are pushed to the periphery of economic life and so do not have a fair go at the ownership of economic capital. In most instances, they form the bulk of the poor, who are also unemployed and are the ones dominating the poor neighborhoods which are underserved by infrastructure. To survive, these poor have to engage in criminal activities to make end meets and thus become the sources of insecurity in the country or locality. Pop Culture and the Media Given that popular culture has largely been disseminated and consumed through the media, it would be important to also look at influences of media on the consumers. This is important as far as projecting how popular culture is likely to influence relationship between democracy and security. Drawing from the experience of the United States, Kidd observes that race and other social constructs are important in directing how a given product is consumed. For instance, the fact that a film is widely popular across the races does not in any way mean that both sides are attracted to the same thing. This is because our social differences organizes our experiences differently, and therefore the way people makes sense out of their environment also tends to be different (Kidd, Shively 23; Hughey 486). The message here is that the representations of various characters on a film or play or movie is largely the director’s role. But how the same is consumed or perceived by the viewers is largely a factor of their societal experiences. It is these experiences that tends to engender certain beliefs and behavior and tends to shape how various groups within the society interact with each other. In other words, the perception of the society with regards to issues around them is important in determining how they react to the products of the pop culture. If a movie is popular or disgusting for instance, in most cases it would be a matter of how it has portrayed certain characters either from their backgraounds or their protagonoists or to the extend they believe in that portrayal. If there is a feeling that the portrayal was biased and that the reality was misrepresented then such a movie will face rejection and may not be popular among the concerned groups. Apart from understanding of popular culture on account of our shared heritage, it is important to look at influences of popular culture to those who are exposed to it. According to Baran, on average each American spends 3700 hours annually on either television, movies, music, video games or the internet. The problem with this kind of exposure is that individuals tend to expose themselves to violent messages. Yet they are unable to stop this because they themselves believes that they are immune to such messages (Constock and Scharrer 24), thus leading to further exposure. This is partially influenced by the wrong notion that our habits are not harmful and the assumption that effects of such violence are immediately observable (Potter 37). This way, even policies to control negative messages have not been forthcoming. However, this is one area a democratic government would not dare venture for fear of a backlash as people claiming freedom of press and freedom of expression will pour out in the streets and threaten policy makers with being voted out. However, Johnson, Jackson and Gotto(16) and Stark (28), have concluded that violent music lyrics, sexist and racist language have tended to increase aggressiveness and adversarial relationship. This only serves to fuel insecurity, albeit in a subtle way, leading to increase in cases of insecurity, ranging from crime, racisms and sexual violence. Besides, popular culture tends to engender certain stereotypes. For instance, black males are more likely to carry guns or play the roles of ‘gangster’ (Ward). Stereotypes are enough to perpetuate acts of violence against people from on account of their origin simply because of how they are depicted in video games, movies and films writer. In the United States, cases of young unarmed black males being shot dead has served to reiterate the subtle racial hostility in the nation. What has not helped matters is that there is no prominent case, as yet, where perpetrators of such cases have been held to account. The high profile case of Trevor Martin was one where the rotten underbelly of the racial tensions bursting at the seams was exposed. It may not be a direct case of influence of popular culture that led o the shooting, but the stereotype was clear; black men were more likely to be the intruders in the neighborhood, perpetrating acts of violence and hence more likely to be dangerous. This only helps to accentuate cases of violence. The influence of the popular culture in the society lies well with the study of Schudson (162) who sought to know characteristics that make popular culture more powerful and thus be able to influence the society. The proliferation of the media means that three of these characteristics have become even more important. To begin with is what Schudson calls rhetorical force; something powerful and strong that keeps on ringing in the mind of the consumer. This will definitely make the game, movie or advert to be remembered again an again by the consumer. It links well into the second aspect which is Resonance. According to Schudson (168), resonance is the ability of the product to connect with the consumer. Resonance is thus the extent to which the product seems familiar to the audience. Something familiar is likely to attract attention more easily that something the audience struggles to decipher what it is all about. Lastly, and which is important is Institutional Retention (171). This is the extent to which the society takes what has been projected to be normal. This is what is called informal institution. It therefore becomes the norm or is used as a yardstick with which to judge or make certain decision as either right or wrong. Therefore, deducing from the opinions of Johnson, Jackson and Gotto and Stark above, through exposure to popualr culture, violence is institutionalised in the collective social memory and it becomes a norm to see, say, a black being attacked across the street, or a man subjecting a lady to acts of sexual violence. This is becaue the games, films and movies have consistently portratyed these scenes as normal to the extent that people begin to accept them as familiar. Security and Democracy Galactic Republic In this section, I will analyze George Lucass’ Star Wars’ saga and relate it to both democratic and non democratic systems of governance. Specifically, this paper will seek to see whether it is possible for the two concepts i.e security and democracy to coexist, or whether one can only be realize at the expense of the other. In the beginning, the universe was governed by the Galactic Republic. The republic itself was controlled by the senate. In this senate, thousands of planets are represented. It is so large in order to take care of the interest of various groups which have grown over the millennia. This is one of the key pillars of democracy; that all must have a say in the running of the nation. This senate is run by an elected chancellor. The role of chancellor was more or less in charge of procedure but with little real power. This falls well within the realm of democracy whereby the leader has little power as a way of checking against totalitarian tendencies. Therefore, it is the people wielding much of the power through their elected representatives. The leader is more of a figurehead, working with the representatives to achieve the goals of the nation. Besides, the senate itself, in a bid to encompass all factions and groups of the society has become bloated; so large that it is ineffectual. Thus, the Galactic Republic is a representation of democracy gone bad. The senate is ungovernable due to its sheer size and also because of too many interests which makes decision making almost impossible. Therefore, security is compromised because the senate has to work hand in hand with the Jedi Knights who are the army for the republic. More trouble is that the army itself is full of arrogance and therefore unable to protect everybody. There is simply no one who calls the shot here to bring them back in line and give them direction. Matters begin to move with the coming in of empire and abolition of the senate. Previously bogged down by squabbles and dysfunctional system, the empire is like a fresh breathe of air. Security is assured through an ordered way of surveillance of the universe. Decisions about security are rapidly taken and issues brought under control. In a nutshell, it is fair to say that the empire is able to function more effectively compared to the previous Galactic republic. Even though there is dictatorial tendencies compared to what used to prevail previously, but this is discounted on account of better service delivery and security to the people. Brutality of the empire is directed to those who are against stability and are leading rebellion while law abiding citizens, who pay their taxes, do not seems to be touched adversely by the empire. It can thus be said that though dictatorial, this is an empire people can do business with. It is totalitarian but is a paternalistic sense. It can thus be said that security of the state depends more on a functional state system which is readily in a totalitarian system with little squabbles and narrow interest to be protected. Otherwise, in a democracy where squabbles are the order of the day, even security is compromised. A country cannot therefore have it both ways given the case study of the ‘ star ways.’ The same is also true as this paper will try to show using real examples. Security and Democracy The popular culture, as can be gleaned from the ‘Star Wars’ saga, subtly tells us that democracy and security cannot coexist. In other words, democracy, in a way is fertile ground for insecurity. Therefore, for a nation to enjoy security there has to be some tendencies towards totalitarianism by the leadership of the state. To begin with Savun and Phillips (881) and Lutz and Lutz (22) observe that democracies tend to be targetted more often by terrorists compared to non-democracies. This correlation between insecurity and democracy is perpetuated by a number of issues to be found within the construct of democracy. This in effect makes it atractive for perpetrators of insecurity to lauch their attacks. To begin with, the various institutional checks imposed by the democratic ideals on the governments limit the range of actions governments can take to deal with individuals suspected to be involved in the acts of insecuritty sufered by the state (Drakos and Gofas 719). Examples of such contraints include civil liberties and free press. Respect of such liberties provide an environment through which terrorists and other agents can manouvre through the system and go undetected and unpunished. For instance, suspicion alone is not sufficient to arrest and lock up someone as further investigations into their conduct is done. In most instances, the law requires that such persons be allowed their full rights as investigations are done, futher compromising the value of evidence that can be collected as these individuals can use the opportunity to intimidate witnesses and cover up evidence. On the contrary, non democracies have low tolerance for dissent and without much restraint, they are able to collect vast amounts of information on their citizens. As a result, they are more informed about their citizens and are able to nip in the bud any attempt of political dissent, especially violent ones and to a greater extent any threats to security. It thus comes as no surprise that non democracies have suffered less from terrorist incidences compared to democracies. The same can be said of any other forms of crimes in those countries. It must be noted that security aparatus of any state relies on intelligence to act and given the extend to which democracies protect the liberties of their citizens, even collcetion of personal information is restricted. For example, there was an uproar when United States fugitive Edward Snowden leaked information to the extent that the U.S. government had a system of covertly collectly secret data about its citizens. Yet, collection of such data is important in securing the country. The same uproar would be unheard of in non democracies as it will be met with the full force of the government law enforcement machinery. Apart from lack of infromation, another issue that has tended to expose democracies to acts of insecurity has to be legitimacy. Legitimacy in a democracy is achieved through wider acceptance of the rule of a given government in power. As a result, monopoly over violence is not the only claim to power for a democratic regime. Therefore, a democratic regime has to face a serious trade off between the necessity to provide greater security to its citizens and the expense of democratic ideals such as personal freedoms, civil liberties and fair judicial process (Enders and Sanders). Therefore, the regime has to toy with the idea of how to provide security while at the same time observing the fundamental democratic principles, both of which are sources of its legitimacy. This is not usually easy decision to take. Remembering that the system of accountability through regular elections provides the citizens with an opportunity to punish a government that has failed to meet tehir expectations, governments that acts decisively may end up being replaced swiftly. The same is not true for non democracies whose sole claim to legitimacy is the monopoly over violence and the discretion of how to use it. Such states can take decisive action to bring about stability and deal with any perceived threat without the fear of losing legitimacy or losing an election. This way, non democracies become efficient in anticipating and dealing with issues that tends to compromise security compared to democracies. Besides, in non democracies, citizens have surrendered their civil liberties to the state, and the state only respects such liberties at its own volition. According to Liubomir (67) and Enders and Sanders, the only time civil liberties are given up within a democracy with wider acceptance among the populace is usually in the aftermath of an attack. This is when the society is jolted by the need to do something. At that point in time, experience of several countries has shown that citizens would willingly give up their liberties and either promote or remian indifferent to actions such as collection of information by use of torture, invasion of privacy, profiling, arbitrary detention and use of torture as interogation technique (Dershowitz). However, such sacrifices are usually temporal and once the threat starts to fade from the memory of the citizens, they would want their rights back, pushing the government and security agencies on their back foot. This way,fertile ground for another cycle of insecurity is prepared. Ignatieff observe that there is a dire need in democracies for the citizens to appreciate that the society will be much better off ‘… sacrifing civil rights, as long as it remembers that it is for its own good’. Therefore the temporal suspension of liberties in democracies does not in any major way function to prevent risks of attacks. For such risks to be dealt with, civil liberties have to be given up, with the government having a wider latitude to collect information and work within its powers to deal with any dangers. This is only possible within non democracy where civil rights are hardly observed. As within the empire of the ‘Star Wars’, civilians, having given up their civil liberties, were able to enjoy better protection with trouble makers being dealt with decisively. This was because, unlike in the Galactic Republc’ there was beter organisation of security apparatus to serve the entire empire. Another reason would be that a non-democratic regimes know all too well that its legitimacy and continued survival depends on the use of force over the citizens who have no option but to obey. This way, it becomes too easy to deal with any cases of rebellion. A democracy is too permissive as it seeks to show that it is a true representative of the citizens and understands them better. This way, instruments of the state are rarely used against civilians as this is seen to be backwards. As a result, within the Galactic Republic, the small force was inadequate to provide security, and to make matters worse, it was reduced to providing security to the elite, while the rest of the population who did not suit that definition were left exposed. The consequences were clear as rebellions took root till the empire came along. Another issue which can be gleaned from popular culture is what causes insecurity. As observed in the beginning of this paper, the main problem will normally be the non elitist taking up popualr culture as a safety valve to express their dissatisfcation with some aspects of their lives. In some instances, this leads to acts of insecurity as the non elitist try to assert themselves and get what they feel rightfully belongs to them. Looking at the ‘Star Wars’, it can be said that the difference in violence between the empire and the Galactic Republic was the way insecurity in the form of rebellion was dealt with. Under democracy in the Galactic Republic, the disorganisation and noises by the senators meant that the price of engaging in rebellion was minimal while returns (possibility of independence) were high. According to Crenshaw (121) when such circumstances exist, then insecurity levels go up. Crenshaw and Eyerman (163) holds that democracy increases the chances of individuals engaging in violent activities by reducing the price of such activities through a commitment to various civil liberties. Thus, civil liberties such as freedom of movement and association coupled with the minorities with countless grievances provide fertile grounds for the creation and operation of terrorist groups and other small scale violent groups. Gofas (292) adds that the prerequisite of prosecution in a democratic system that requires rigorous proof to be adduced before a conviction can be upheld makes democracies even more vulnerable to violent groups. Thus, a popular culture that punctures holes in the social fabric and reminds the non elitist about their predicament, something they can all associate with, is more or less a call to action; to do something about their situation. In most cases, this stark reminder finds subtle answers in acts of violence. With very little to keep people in check, democracy becomes vulnerable and unable to deal with the same, kicking off prolonged violent struggles. As a consequent, any one with intent of engaging in any activity that threaten the security of the state, for instance acts of terrorism, has nothing to hold them back and make them think twice. This was true for the Galactic Republic and has also been the case in countless other countries where the centre cannot hold various parts together. However, in a non-democracy where the civil liberties are not largely observed, the cost of engaging in such acts of insecurity is high and the returns are small. Heavy price is to be paid by such characters and as a result, even when individuals are not happy, they would keep quiet and let the wound fester, rather than take on the state machinery and be crushed. As a result, individuals are kept in check by constant fear. Therefore, democracy is not a good system of checking the insecurity tendencies because of the structural issues and the balance of power which makes instututions charged with the responsibility of enforcing order largely weak and unable to keep pace with the dynamism of the threats directed at the state. While the governments in a democracy grapples with the need to provide security to the people as part of their stately fuction, it is important to look at the dilemma they face. As noted earlier, the government itself faces stark choice of whether to contravene civil liberties in its pursuit to enforce security. On the other hand, looking at the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the citizens to be protected rank security among the low level needs (Liubomir, 68). This means that the higher levels needs which are given prominence by individuals comes with more personal and civil liberties, and not less. Therefore, there is a tug of war with the government which makes the whole system ineffectual. This has to remind one of the gun control rules in the United States. For the government to ensure that reckless loss of lives is avoided, it was necessary that access and ownershp of guns be controlled more rigidly. However, when the issue came to the congress, the bill was defeated. Part of it was that the population. A vast majority of them did not faour such a control, especially given the insecurity they face in their daily lives. Politicians on the other hand feared losing their seats at the elections. In the end, citizens would rather live and get used to the insecurity brought about by misuse of firearms than lose their liberties to access and use guns as they wished.It is a good example of a government’s dilemma on how best to handle the security situation. Conclusion As seen from the arguments above, democracy and security are mutually exclusive events. They cannot coexist together. Having one means that the other is compromised. Democratic governments therefore have the onerous responsibility of ensuring that they deliver both so as to earn their legitimacy. The problem is that they face a dilemma. Enforcing perfect security to its citizens means that certain civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement and associatioans and privacy must be curtailed to some extend. However, individuals will be unwilling to give up these freedoms to the state. That is what a democracy is all about; that power is with the people and the people decide what should be done and how it should be done. Democratic governments on the other side cannot go against the wishes of the majority or less it will loss its legitimacy. Consequently, democratic governments cannot access private infromation of their citizens and cannot lock them up on mere suspicions. The government therefore lacks information and its hands are tied on how to prevent violent activities from taking place. Democratic governments are thus ill suited to provide security. Non democratic systems of governments, which do not give their citizens much liberties and can flout the same liberties at its whims is perharps the best suited to deal with the security issues. The cost of engaging in acts of insecurity are high and individuals can expect the full force of the law being applied against tehm. This way, cases of insecurity are low, as people fear the consequences of a fall out with the government. Therefore governments that can deal better with security issues are those that tends to lean towards authoritarianism. Works Cited Baran, S. J. Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003. Constock, E. and Scharrer, G. The Psychology of Media and Politics. New York: Academic Press, 2005. Crenshaw, M. "The Debate over New vs Old Terrorism." Karawan, I.A., W. McCormack and S.E. Reynolds. Values and Violence: Intangible Aspects of Terrorism. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. 117-136. Crossman, Ashley. Popular Culture. 2014. 16 November 2014 . Dershowitz, A.M. Why Terrorism Works: Undestanding the Threat, Responding to Challenge. Paw Prints, 2008. Drakos, K. and A. Gofas. "The Devil you Know but are Afraid to Face." Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (5) (2006): 714-735. Enders, W. and T. Sanders. The Political Economy of Terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Eyerman, J. "Terrorism and Democratic States: Soft Targets or Accessible Systems?" International Interactions 24(2) (1998): 151-170. Gofas, Andreas. "The Terrorism-Democracy Nexus and the Trade-Off Between Security and Civil Liberties." Tzifakis, N. International Politics in Times of Change. Athens: Konstantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy, 2012. 283-298. Ignatieff, M. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. Princeton University Press, 2005. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance . Democracy, Conflict and Human Security. Policy Summary. Geneva: United Nations, 2006. Johnson, J.D., L.A. Jackson and A. Gotto. "Violent Attitudes and Deferred Academic Aspirations: Deleterious Effects of Exposure to Rap Music." Basic and Applied Social Psychology (1995): 27-41. Kidd, Dustin. Pop Culture Freaks: Identity, Mass Media, and Society. Washington: Westview Press, 2006. Liubomir, Topaloff. "Terrorist Threats, Executive Powers and Democracy Under Siege." Meiji Journal of Political Science and Economics vol.1 (2012): 65-92. Lutz, J. M. and B.J. Lutz. "Democracy and Terrorism." Perspectives of Terrorism (2010): 16-29. Osborn, Rebecca. The Influence of American Popular Culture in the Global Media. Masters Thesis. Missouri: Webster University, 2006. Potter, W.J. The Eleven Myths of Media Violence. Thousand Oaks: CA: Saeg, 2003. Savun, B. and B.J. Phillips. "Democracy, Foreign Policy and Terrorism." Journal of Conflict Resolutions 53(6) (2009): 878-904. Schudson, Michael. "How Culture Works: Perspectives From Media Studies on the Efficacy of Symbols." Theory and Society 18 (2) (1989): 153-180. Smith, Stacy L. and Marc Choueiti. Gender Inequality in Cinematic Content? A look of Females on screen and behind the Camera in Top-Grossing 2008 Films. 2010. 15 November 2014 . Stark, E. Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Ward, L.M. "Does Television Exposure Affect Emerging Adults Attitudes and Assumptions about Sexual Relationships? Correlational and Experimenatl Confrimation." Journal of Youth & Adolescence 31(1) (2002): 1-15. Read More