The first quarter of the 21st century has posed new and serious threats to humanity, which, although they can be faced with determination and decisiveness by world leaders, have also shown that they require updated actions and tools, as well as new conceptual developments to confront them.
The global pandemic, the economic and business reorganization resulting from the health crisis (which has left many organizations bankrupt and hundreds of jobs lost worldwide), in addition to the enormous environmental and climate crisis and the lack of control in the production of nuclear weapons, which several countries possess, represent, for example, serious contemporary challenges.
In addition, these facts, which for experts are understood as Group IX or X threats, are accompanied, in turn, by situations arising from the breadth and depth of technological development and globalization, especially in communications (which has translated positively into the emergence of new businesses and economic actors, but also in the emergence of new risks, in the form of computer crimes and the lack of control of data associated with people).
On the other hand, artificial intelligence, which transforms jobs associated with knowledge, and increasingly advanced robotics (which by now replaces thousands of manual jobs), the struggle for unconquered spaces and their treasures – that which lies beyond the atmosphere, the seabed, the jungles, the glaciers-, the uncontrollable power of multinational corporations and their owners, the excess of wealth in the hands of a few people, families and nations, the use of violence or war as a method of resolving conflicts between countries and people, the proliferation of transnational organized crime, the construction of walls to prevent migration from other nations or from less advanced continents, the use of weapons by citizens – especially in undeveloped countries but also in developed countries where massacres are resurging – or the crisis of the international justice system in the face of state actors who openly disregard the human rights of their opponents and corruption as a form of government, are signs of a different society, which poses new challenges, levels and degrees of security and other visions that give another meaning to global development.
Added to this are the enormous problems and traditional threats to society, inherited from the last century, such as extreme poverty, citizen violence, daily delinquency, organized crime, the consumption of addictive substances or the inability to overcome differences by peaceful means, as behaviors or even as businesses, which represent serious challenges for humanity.
Naturally, all this translates into new internal tensions within countries and even more, between countries themselves, generating conflicts, some violent, which alters international relations, the structures of society and human beings themselves.
So while millions of people throughout the world feel insecure, uncomfortable and fearful about what they are experiencing, and are therefore forcing national or local leaders to take desperate actions to protect society, people and their property, with extreme approaches to calm their anxieties, many leaders with global influence are feeding those fears with calls for war, defense of values or tradition, using violent means.
Therefore, old and new threats, turned into conflicts in some cases, end up characterized by violence, and accompanied by physical aggression, death, attacks, bombings, invasions, terrorism or with the psychological exploitation of the fears or anxieties of real people, by political or economic actors, who are interested in profiting from the uneasiness of citizens.
For all these reasons, it has become more common that nowadays citizens are advocating for authoritarian policies, dictatorial leaders, aggressive laws or actions that go beyond human rights, such as the death penalty. And, therefore, many authorities, some democratically elected, are taking decisions opposed to freedom and human security, privileging order over the rights of the person.
And although not all human beings, countries and continents experience these issues in the same way and with the same degrees of insecurity, it is clear that these same tendencies are reflected in the different security practices of the world.
Thus, a profound crisis has arisen in the concept and daily practices of security, which means questioning once again its conceptual and practical nature, i.e. its epistemology.
It is therefore necessary to go back to its origins and inquire into its nature or raison d’être, since, as the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies states, the concept of security is controversial, there is no consensus on its meaning and there are a large number of different definitions.
This can be seen from the fact that some authors have drawn up lists of words that have been added to the term security to define it in different ways. These include state, national, local, universal, universal, collective, multisectoral, common, integral, defensive, global, international, cooperative, citizen and human security, to cite only the fields of political science, international relations, military science and geopolitics.
So, going back to its foundations, it is important to ask what security is in social terms. And at this point, it will be necessary to note that there are profound conceptual and methodological differences between the various currents of interpretation (realism, idealism, neorealism, neoidealism, reflectivism, structuralism, functionalism, Marxism, criticism, positivism, etc.), which translates into different definitions, practices and policies that affect the daily lives of people, states and social actors.
In this case, far from the positivism that contrasts security with insecurity, this paper, which is based on the structural-functionalist approach, is based on the notion of a system with its components, actors and relationships, as well as its purposes and functions. That is, in its conceptual and practical nature.
Nature of Security
With regard to the theoretical nature of security, which includes thinkers, authors, analysts or leaders, as well as the different national and international institutions linked to the subject – in addition to the different centers of strategic thought – the following definitions are almost always repeated:
Security is a perception of reality by the different human actors, a state of absence of danger or of full confidence and credibility, a sum of real events that happen to society and people without affecting their peace and tranquility, the set of social facts that affect those who have economic and political power without affecting their position and welfare, a condition for the general peace of society while maintaining the current social structure and privileges, a right of man and society. And the most common of all is that security is a duty of the state and therefore is a public service.
It is also noted that it can be the union of several of these concepts, or all at once.
Next, when we look at the purpose of the security system, we discover that its nature will be different, whether the raison d’être is the individual or society, individual or collective interests, rights or norms, human life or that of all living beings, the peace of some or global security, politics, force or violence as ways of confronting differences.
Thirdly, as regards the actors in the system, almost all approaches focus on the state or nation states as the major security actors, and therefore on national authorities and international intergovernmental institutions created by states.
It should be noted that most analyses point to military, police and intelligence organizations as those directly responsible for security actions, while governmental and international leaders are considered to be in charge of guiding policy and decisions from the highest positions of state power administration and even as decisive actors in international organizations. And in some cases, private organizations or groups of people with state support are included as business allies, which have been incorporated into the system in the form of suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, support networks, collective groups and other types of collaborators.
Finally, in recent years there has been an attempt to disseminate the idea that citizens or individuals are jointly responsible for security.
Fourthly, and with regard to the general functions of the system, the analyses do not show major differences, since almost all point to the maintenance of the established order as its main task.
Now, going into the definitions presented, a few remarks can be made
If security is considered to be a perception of reality, then the central point is that the conception that people and actors in the system have of what security means and how they feel or experience it is associated with their own particular interests, feelings, dreams, aspirations and ideas.
Therefore, it is a matter of interpreting a series of often raw data. In this case, governmental or international community responses will be understood to be associated with the needs and aspirations for peace and tranquility of each actor, and will therefore reflect the differences or congruencies with the responses offered by the authorities, those in power or those who run the system. Here, security will be associated with the particular ideas about the existing situation and each actor’s own satisfaction.
This vision is often opposed by a second conception. Reality is a sum of events that occur in society, to individuals, to states, to the international community or to those who have economic and political power. Here, security is thought of above all as the absence of facts of insecurity, i.e. as the non-existence of real events or social facts that occur, generating fear, pain, death, losses, or other negative and direct effects on those same actors. For that reason, this approach focuses on the impact of the facts or on the accumulated figures of negative events and is based on processed data.
Naturally, this same reality could be associated with economic problems, such as poverty or exclusion, or political, cultural, environmental, value or personal behavioral differences, which could motivate insecurity or violence.
A third approach speaks of security as a duty of the state, which implies thinking of it as one of the essential functions of the state apparatus, and therefore of the multiple tasks that correspond to the different organizations of the local, national, international or global community. This definition also applies to intergovernmental institutions, such as the UN, the OAS and other bodies created in the different territories of the world to manage their collective security. Thus, security is a political issue of the first order.
Therefore, if the role of the State or of international society is to maintain the established order, then the security system will seek to maintain or preserve what exists, or if it is to recognize change, then the system will seek to ensure that the new is done under certain parameters.
Hand in hand with the above is the concept of security as a public service, which corresponds to the State or the international community, with its vast powers, levels, systems and resources. In this case, security becomes an administrative, managerial and technical issue at the same time.
However, security has also been defined as a condition for human, local, national and international peace.
Here it can be assumed that both peace and security are human rights, since they are associated with the life, integrity, conscience and dignity of the individual human being, although they can also be understood as the development of a culture that overcomes the belief that peace is exclusively a matter for the government, the state or the international community.
In this definition, citizens assume that this issue is a matter for all people, that it concerns them on a daily basis, that they are part of the culture of peace and that it is necessary to go beyond their own interests, since peace is a higher cultural value.
Therefore, there would be a strong tendency to include in its content, the environment, other living beings and the different developments that man himself has created or is creating for his development.
In terms of its practical nature, security, as one analyst put it, can be understood under two approaches: an idealistic or political one, which raises expectations or actions to be developed; and another, of a realistic nature, which describes the problems, limitations and dangers of not achieving a true or complete culture of peace or of leaving it at a point of no solution.
Here, the idealistic approach, and from the perspective of the state as the main actor, takes one or more of the currents of interpretation, with their different definitions, practices and policies, and translates them into norms (laws, decrees, regulations, constitutions, resolutions, codes, treaties or agreements issued by states) and creates national or international bodies for their implementation. In this approach, security is based on whether or not the actors comply with the norms and therefore their actions are assumed to be legal or illegal, while those same norms reflect the current state of the political, cultural, social and economic structure of society.
As for the realist perspective, the State assumes that it is the facts or threats that lead to the definition of decisions, practices, restrictions, tools, direct actors and actions leading to the development of the security system.
For the same reason, national or international authorities permanently establish the problems, dangers, risks, signs of conflict, and the actors that threaten or may threaten peace and tranquility. They also determine the objectives, actions, responses and those responsible for the system, according to the levels of authority. This definition is also made in accordance with the norms, since it is the legitimate power of these authorities that allows the concrete use of force, the use of intelligence and the use of the multiple resources that states or the international community possess to address security issues.
First Contributions
In the brief summary presented, it can be seen that there are many scattered elements that could be grouped under the concept of system and could therefore be rethought.
The first thing that can be suggested is that the notion of integrality should be worked on. That is, an approach of interrelated and interconnected components, under a union of concepts and practices that complement each other. In view of this nature, it would be possible to bring together many of the concepts presented, with the necessary adjustments to integrate them into a single object. And then look at them as supports for practical actions.
Under this view, security would be, at the same time, a perception of reality by the different human actors, a state of absence of danger or of full confidence and credibility, a sum of real events that occur to society and to people without affecting their peace and tranquility, a condition for the general peace of society, a right of man, of society and of all living beings, as well as a duty of the State and therefore a public service.
In such a case, the system would also be a political, administrative, managerial and technical matter of the highest state, governmental and global level, requiring new analyses, decisions, objectives, resources and experts for its practical development.
Secondly, if the comprehensiveness of the system is recognized, then the traditional threats and those of the 21st century would be incorporated into its conceptual and methodological content as demands, which means working on practical responses. And this would imply going beyond the social facts that affect those who have economic and political power, their position and welfare, as well as the social structure of their privileges.
Thirdly, an integrally conceived system would allow questioning the actors, whether its deep nature only promotes structures or develops functions that guarantee stability, or whether that structure understands change as something natural and assumes instability within some parameters of order. Or if, in a situation of profound change, it will aim to return to the previous situation or help to transform reality.
Fourthly, as opposed to the purpose, the notion of system would allow us to accept that the nature of security in the 21st century includes the individual and society, individual and collective interests, rights and norms, human life and that of all living beings, the peace of some, state security and global security. In this case, politics should be above the use of force, without ignoring it, and far above the use of violence or war as ways of confronting differences.
For all this, politics could be promoted before force and violence, assuming that the State or international authorities must use legitimate force to confront many of the threats. And for that same reason, and from its conceptual and practical nature, the system would help to develop new strategies that promote permanent debate, dialogue, civilized discussion of opinions, identification of interests and objectives of citizens and of these with society or of the State with other States.
And without leaving aside actions based on the use of legitimate force, when some of the social actors use violence as a successful strategy in the solution of their conflicts, the system will make it possible to review the concept of war, in its different levels and forms, its new types, the use of weapons and new combat tools, as well as the ideas of enemy and armed conflict.
Consequently, the main challenge for leaders, states and the international community could be to question their beliefs in order to permanently revise and reformulate their paradigms and thus achieve the necessary balance between the processes of change, stability and peace in society.
Fifthly, and with regard to the actors, the system would help to overcome the idea that only the State or national States are responsible for security, since intergovernmental institutions at the international level and the role of citizens in their development must be strengthened. It would also clarify the roles of private groups or groups of people with state support as business allies, which have been joining in the form of suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, support networks, collective groups and other types of collaborators.
In this way, the individual’s duties to himself, his fellow human beings and other species would be vital to the system.
Sixthly, the system would help to accept, recognize and work with the different challenges, levels and degrees of security, for although States must protect themselves, they must also protect society, the world and the rules from those who seek to destroy them and, above all, people, as shown in Figure 6. Here it is vital to specify the similarities and differences between personal, local, national, international and global security.
Seventh, the degrees of security should lead to a clear definition, from highest to lowest, of the risks, threats and responses to events, actors, facts and societies with greater or lesser possibilities of generating security problems.
Other Contributions
In the field of security there are many currents of interpretation, but far from the positivism that contrasts security with insecurity, this proposal is based on the structural-functionalist approach, which is based on the notion of a system with its components, actors and relationships, as well as its purposes and functions. In other words, in its conceptual and practical nature.
Traditional approaches speak of its conceptual nature as if it were a perception, events of peace, a set of state duties to guarantee it or the public service associated with national states or the international community. Others link it to human rights, the culture of peace and the superior value it represents.
Our proposal aims at understanding security as an integral system that is not exhausted by the ideas of order, peace, state intervention or the role of international institutions, as well as of some individuals, without stopping to think about the very nature of everything that surrounds man and society.
In this case, security and its practices should go further, since States have fallen short in promoting a culture of improvement that would allow society to enter another stage of human development. And even because there has been no reflection on whether the security system has contributed to create a culture of hatred, resentment or war, through the models and systems that sustain it.
It is fundamental then that the system assumes dialogue, recognition of differences and respect for the rights of the other as real, and that the understanding of the interests of others, are understood as if they were matters that do not turn others into enemies.
There must be a greater awareness of the role of this theme in the home, daily life, functions and in general, in the development of the system of life, because only by internalizing in people, the foundations that give meaning to the vision of human rights and the culture of peace, it will be possible to face, among others, the issues of conflicts.
Thus, a great challenge will be to address the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the creation of a massive culture of peace that supports it, in order to change the reality of security.
Finally, if the security system does not include, as it should, with its weight, impact and real and daily presence in the lives of people, states and the global world of the 21st century, technology, globalization of communications, robotics and artificial intelligence, as major threats and challenges (despite their innumerable benefits) is to leave aside many of the issues that are associated with the current reality. Data, for example, in the form of images, sounds or symbols that describe ideas, behaviors, conflicts, opinions, tastes, etc., in this scenario have become matters of the highest strategic value, and therefore require the greatest protection and attention.
Mauricio Diagama Durán – Professor of geopolitics and Colombian foreign policy at the Escuela Superior de Guerra (Higher War School). Researcher and professor at several universities in Colombia and abroad. Public administrator, specialist in international business and master in national security and defense.