Re-reading National Security from Human Security Perspective:

Constitutionality, Democracy and National Security

By Prof. Gamini Keerawella-November 18, 2018, 10:04 pm 

National security is a critically important, constantly evolving and characteristically amorphous concept. It is a handy rhetoric phrase for politicians, the ultimate policy objective for military and a key analytical concept and a field of study for Social Scientists.

From the very conception of the state, security remains one of its main functions. It has been argued that the state, the supreme political institution that claims the exclusive right to sovereignty, came into existence mainly to fulfill security needs of the society. To Thomas Hobbs, security is the raisons d'être of the state. Accordingly, the state is the principal security provider. At the same time, the security of the state is a critical precondition to discharge its security functions. Then, what is really meant by national security? Broadly speaking, national security denotes the ability of a nation to protect its internal values and assets from external threats. It is an axiom that military is the tool of national security. In line with the evolution of the state, the concept of security and the role of military have also changed.

In order to place the present discourse on national security in an analytical context, it is helpful to trace its conceptual genealogy. The origins of the present concept of security can be traced back to the formation of modern sovereign states, known as ‘nation state system’. However, the present discourse on ‘national security’ took its shape after 1945 in the Cold War Context at the research and policy corridors of the United States. Accordingly, the security of the state in an anarchic international environment was the focal concern of the national security. The only object of reference of national security is the state. Security was defined as the protection of mainly territorial integrity and sovereignty vis-à-vis threats originated from external sources. Hence, security of the state depends on its power. Power was defined only in terms of military power. Hence, national security was nothing but the politico-military security of the state.

Some profound developments that took place in international and national spaces in the last quarter of the last century have compelled to revisit the traditional concept of national security. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has marked the end of the post-War phase in international politics. The theoretical and analytical categories of national security developed in the Cold War context lost their earlier validity and their inadequacy to understand security problematic of non-western countries became more and more evident with the passage of time. The resurgence of ethnicity in many parts of the world and the spread of ethnic conflicts linked with secessionist state projects practically questioned the very basis of the ‘modern state system’. The issue of how to reconfigure the concept of national security not only to incorporate nonmilitary security threats but also to bring other references of security such as society and individual came to forefront in the changed global context.

The challenges to conventional national security emerged from three directions simultaneously. Firstly, by presenting a report on ‘Common Security’, the Palme Commission ignited a new discourse on security. The Commission, having been firmly rooted in the Social Democratic tradition in Europe, first questioned the basics of the prevailing national security analyses, especially its emphasis on military-strategic superiority. Secondly, the Peace Research School developed an alternative paradigm by bringing the social groups and the individual as units of analysis. The analytical frames developed by scholars such as Johan Galtung and Kenneth Boulding has widened the disciplinary confines of security studies. The concept of structural violence and the categorization of negative and positive peace questioned the narrow military-strategic perception of security. Thirdly, the human security discourse that evolved in the UN framework placed the concept of security on a different plane by reconfiguring security from a human-centered perspective and bringing in a number of references of security and its various dimensions.

Human security is not an alternative to national security. They are mutually re-imposing. The rejection of statist-bias in the traditional concept of national security does not mean that security of the state is not important. Security of the state is considered a very important prerequisite for the other references of security. When the state is insecure the entire society becomes insecure. The security of the state can be reconfigured from a human security perspective to capture the totality of the security paradigm.

The real issue here is how to define the security of the state. Security of the state denotes something more than the physical security of territory and its ruling class. On the one hand, the state is a legal abstraction. On the other, it has a territorial basis and institutional framework of its own. Furthermore, the idea of the state based on its organization ideology constitutes an important element of the state. State is more an idea held in common by a group, than it is a physical mechanism. Therefore, Barry Buzan identifies three elements of security of the state: the idea of the state (ideological base), the territory (physical base) and the institutions and people (institutional and human base). The idea of the state is the critical factor that establishes the legitimacy in the minds of its people. It binds the territory with the human and institutional base along with the state. The state operates not only in the phys cal/geographical sphere but also on a socio-political plane.

The idea of the state is the basis for ideology of the state. The security of the state must be achieved first of all in the politico-ideological plane. It is the ideology of the state that decides the way in which the human base is organized and the orientation of the institutional frames of the state is decided. The ideology of the state must cut across ethic boundaries and political loyalties. It should not be changed in line with the entry and exit of governments and political leaders. The weak ideological basis of the state and its failure to unite all the people that reside within the boundaries of the country are the clear indicators of a weak and insecure state. A key factor of legitimacy of the state domestically is its ability to present an ideology acceptable to all the people in the country, cutting across political and ethnic lines. As Barry Buzan vividly explains if the ideas themselves are weak; or they are weakly held within society; or if strongly held, but challenged within society; then the state stands on fragile foundations. The fundamental issue in national insecurity is the lack of firmly held organizing ideologies attached to the state. In a multi-ethnic country, the ideas of inclusive democracy and good governance are capable of providing a strong organizational ideology for the state. When the ideology of the state comes and goes with political leaderships, national security remains without a direction, akin to a ship sans a compass.

When the weak ruling bloc fails to present a healthy ideology for the state that would unite all the citizens cutting across ethnic divisions, they need ‘enemies’ of the motherland to rally people. Weak regimes see enemies of the state everywhere, conspiracies against the state in every nook and corner. To them, the main task of the state is to identify and counter internal and external enemies who are waiting to destroy the country. Therefore, any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified. Accordingly, there are only two types of citizens: patriotic and unpatriotic. This creates fear and suspicion and thereby narrows the range of public debate and democratic discourse. Then, it in itself becomes a national security issue.

The other dimension of national security is the security of the institutional frames of the State. No State can survive solely with its ideological foundation. To be functional, any state needs a set of complex formal and informal institutions. In a democratic setup, the most important element of the institutional arrangement of the state is the constitution. The constitution is the reflection of the ideology of the state. The security of institutions of the state, including the constitution, constitutes a key aspect of political security of the state. Political security does not necessarily mean the security of the regime in power; it is based on credible and strong institutional network. For that, the dignity of the bureaucracy needs to be respected. The legitimacy of institutions of the state is destroyed mainly by direct political interference to established administrative procedures, not by external threats. The politicization of the institutions makes the entire mechanism of the state insecure and it ultimately becomes an integral element of the national insecurity. A strong state needs independent and strong institutions, which would not be manipulated by those in power. In this backdrop, the principles of good governance and rule of law occupy the center of the new discourse on national security. The violation or manipulation of constitution for narrow political gains is definitely a national security threat. In that sense, the judiciary can play a critical role as a guardian of national security.

In rereading national security in line with the new security discourse, we need to give due consideration to the human base as a unit of reference of security. When the human base of the state is insecure, the state cannot be secure. It is necessary to bring other references of security such as the individual and the collective identities along with the state to grasp national security in a broader analytical plane. The security of the individual cannot be overlooked at the expense of the security of the state as insecurity of the individual ultimately undermines security of the state itself. The recognition of the individual as a reference object of security has brought human rights into the national security agenda. Suppression of human rights in the name of national security leads to further breakdown of national security.

The constitution is the supreme law of the country. The entire institutional apparatus of the state and their procedures receive their legitimacy and credibility through the constitution. The judiciary is mandated to safeguard the constitution. The constitutionality, enlightened political leaders and the informed public with robust press are essential elements of national security from human security perspective.

(Based on the Presentation made at the International Research Conference of the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University (KDU) in September 2018)