Main Political Implications of the Privatization of Security - Essay Example

What are the main political implications of the privatization of security? Privatization involves the state offering the private firms the contractual duties to provide public services such as security, health care services and many more. Security refers to the level of risks present for an individual or institution and the level of protection available for those threats (Watson, 2008, p. 1). Therefore, security privatization refers to the offering of contracts to private firms to take up security obligations to supplement the security effort by the security forces of a nation. One of the major obligations of any government to its citizens is to ensure their security otherwise; they would not have any confidence in them (Watson, 2008). Therefore, any security move for any nation cannot avoid having political implications since this act as benchmark to access the capabilities of the political leaders to offer protection to their citizens. Over the years, many nations have viewed security as the sole role of the government and hence they have seen military jobs as a different kind of job. Many have considered security as an aspect that they have paid for through tax remittances and therefore they have been the biggest opposes to the idea of privatizing security for quite some time (Singer, 2008, p. 8). In the United States, the whole concept of privatizations traces its way back in the 19th century by the use of private firms in the rail service provision. Security privatization was one of the largest privatization initiatives that the United States embarked on in the 20th century during the Second World War by privatizing part of the defense functions (Chesterman & Fisher, 2009, p.16). The motivation for this government to private collusion was the increased need for operational and technical support during that time of the war. Ever since that period, this kind of partnership has never ceased between these public and private companies. This trend in security partnership especially in the military has given rise to numerous private security firms (PSCs) which have specialized in a range of activities, which the United States government has been keen to privatize. The major areas that these companies have concentrated on include assessing security risk, offering intelligence support, strategic planning, technical assistant and operational supplement (Singer, 2008). The ramifications that the privatization of security offers all lie in the political arena since security from the onset was a government role which the political leader as the steers. Several analysts discuss that as much as the privatization of security is a cost saver for the government department, there are concerns regarding the idea due to numerous reasons. Lack of control by the government By virtues that security is in the hands of personally incorporated companies, the idea seems to remove the control and democracy from the hands of these private firms. Many security privatizations pessimists argue that the move is a threat to the government security organs whose main role is to ensure cases of violence do not occur (Avant, 2005, p. 29). Therefore, by offering this role to corporate organization seems to down grade the participation and the capacity of these government organs. They further argue that when the government contains security situation it is always for the good of the citizen but private company’s motive is profit making, which could deviate from the real threats to policies, which can earn them more money. Private companies that are trustees of the security to some extent intrude with the government operation especially on the concept of security policy which many regards as a detriment towards the sovereignty of a nation (Bigo & Tsoukala, 2008, p.160). The government should be free from any interference to serve their nationals. Considering that policy formulation of security policies is one of the roles that the state outsources from these private firms then this independence is difficult to achieve. Lack of political oversight and control Many other aspects of control concerning the privatization of security are conflicting and create a situation whereby circumvention of laws regarding the use of force. Owing to the regulation present concerning government interference in private companies, the participation of congress in using this force is quite limited (Percy, 2013, p.16). The reduction of this control similarly affects of the government institutions to hold these private firms accountable. Diminished public opinion In matters of security, the role of the public to offer their insight is very critical in the regulation on security matters by the government and future policy development. The use private contractor in security matters eliminates this role therefore even on matters of involvement in unapproved wars are common (Percy, 2013). The use of private troops in war zones minimizes the number a government sends to the war therefore they are bound to lose only a few of their soldiers. Therefore, the government can engage in unwarranted wars since they will not loose so many of their troops. Lack of control on the use of force in war zones The regular use of the normal troops has a lot controls that governs them especially in the battlefields. Due to the code of conduct that governs the soldiers and the intensity of their training, they are more resistant to hard conditions even when the going gets tough. On the contrary, private security troops have no such regulations and codes of operation that restrict them from leaving when they feel that they cannot take any more pressure (Percy, 2013, p.17). Such conducts jeopardizes the operation of such organizations and the political standings on the nation among other nations. Ethical dilemmas Moral questions arise whereby many contest the placement of people’s security in the hands of private companies. Many argue it is not morally right because these companies are in play just to make profits therefore the interest of people’s security will not be their primary concern (Mandel, 2002, p. 130). Another ethical question arises from the concept that these companies seems as if they receive payment just to do the killings on behalf the state. This portrays the state as unethically considerate as they work of the security should be their function. Question of integrity and ability The private security firms faces criticism over the integrity of their employees where by some claims that they can trade the security of people just to serve their own interest. According to the Yale journal of international affairs (2006), such a case happened in the United States where an employee with private contractual identification sent a package with nicotine. The United States customs intercepted the package and this raised the question as to how far the private firms regulate their employees. The ability of private firms to make good judgments on matters of security is also questionable due to the nature of error that occurs under their jurisdiction. An example of such occurrence is when two persons, a missionary and his daughter got killed due to force information by a private security firm under the misconception that they were transporting drugs ( Stanger & Williams, 2006, pg.13) Lack of control in security matters by the military A highly specialized chain of command characterizes the military and their procedures are very clear but the incorporation of private corporations in these operations poses a dilemma. These private corporate are not subject to the structure governing the army thus they are not under the control of the army (Percy, 2008). The operation structures of private firms are very unclear, which risks greatly the security since no one can hold them accountable. The lack of clarity is also contributable to the opaque rule, which engulf these firms. The lack of this control is also attributable to the gaps that also exist in these security gaps further raising the question of accountability. Cost and their accountability The main goal why the United States government sought the involvement of private security firms is to reduce the cost of their operation. However, that is not case because their target on cost saving keeps on fluctuating from tome making this model not a reliable way to reduce costs (Stanger & Williams, 2006) Additionally, the private security firm acts as a loop hole for political money laundering whereby since the congress is limited to their operations, some leader may use it for their own benefits. This theft occurs especially where outsourcing is in the form of providing other services other than being in the war zone itself. An example of such an occurrence involves an incident where an audit revealed that the firm could not account for millions of money. The firm was responsible for the provision of the food staff for the U.S troops in Iraq (Stanger & Williams, 2006). Security privatization concept in the United States is very common especially in the army to provide various services. Though it has its own benefits like providing the technical skills, where there are shortages their political implications are hard to ignore. The United States government should therefore evaluate the benefits and cost of privatizing security in order to find the best way to serve its citizens. References Avant, D.D. 2005. The Market for force: The Consequence of privatizing security. U.K: Cambridge University Press Bigo, D. and Tsoukala, A. 2008. Terror, insecurity and Liberty: lliberal practices of liberals. Abingdon: Routedge Chesterman, S. and Fisher, A. 2009. Private security, Public order: The utsourcing of public services and its limits. Oxford; New York: Oxford university press Dunigan, M.2011. Victory for hire: Private security companies’ impact on military effectiveness. Stanford,Calif: Stanford Security studies Mandel,R.2002.Armies without states: the privatization of security. Boulder,Colo: Lynne Rienner Percy,S. 2013. Regulating the Private Security Industry. New York: Routledge Singer, P.W. 2008. Corporate warriors: the rise of the privatized military industry. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell university Watson, C.A. 2008. U.S. National security: a reference handbook.2nd ed. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO Read More