Minding Exceptions: The Politics of Insecurity and Liberal Democracy

Article (PDF Available)inContemporary Political Theory 3(3) · December 2004with 578 Reads
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300137
Abstract
In the wake of 9/11 exceptionalism has gained in political leverage. Executive-centred government prevails in responses to 9/11; civil liberties have been curtailed; due process and fair trial can be ignored under particular circumstances; asylum and immigration procedures have been tightened; etc. What is at stake in these developments? In this essay I try to give an answer to this question by revisiting Franz L Neumann's concern that when fear of the enemy becomes the energetic principle of politics liberal democracy is impossible. Revisiting the debates in legal and political theory in which he participated supports the view that security policy, in this case responses to terrorism cannot be evaluated only on the basis of how effective they are in dealing with a threat. In addition, a more political evaluation that looks at how security policies feed back into society is needed. Security responses can intensify the institutionalization of exceptionalism based on fear of the enemy. In that case security policy becomes paradoxical. It risks undermining liberal democracy through the very means by which it intends to save it.
  • Article
    EU actorness even in turbulent times has been re-affirmed by a largely overlooked phenomenon – namely, the emergence of the EU as an agent of collective securitisation. The fundamental claim of securitisation theory is that threat emergence and management are shaped by the actions of a securitising agent that explicitly links together the social construction of the threat with socially acceptable governance or policy measures. This concluding piece of the Special Issue proceeds from the twin assumptions that securitisation is possible within the EU space and that securitisation affects the nature and modalities of EU security governance across different policy domains. The concept of collective securitisation which frames these assumptions thus broadens our understanding of the EU as a security actor. Summarising the main findings of the Special Issue, the article first revisits the case-study evidence and then offers reflections on how collective securitisation relates to securitisation theory more broadly.
  • Chapter
    This chapter proposes that further critical theories of the state are necessary to engage with security discourse. The first of these, governmentality, is a dispersed means of exercising power upon populations, informed by political economy and articulated through security apparatuses. Power is also exercised over populations through the control of human life which is carried out by technologies of disciplinary power, or ‘biopower’. Additionally, the tendency for states to increasingly assert special powers of emergency represents the outworking of the principle of the ‘state of exception’, through which the sovereign power of the state is totalised by suspending normal juridical procedures. Finally, the contemporary episteme of (in)security has led to the establishment of a ‘banoptic dispositif’ within late capitalist societies (after Bigo in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes After 9/11. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 10–48, 2008).
  • Article
    This paper seeks to explore the politics of counterterrorism in the UK. It argues that for a number of reasons, counterterrorism policy has been separated off from other policy areas and seen as securitised, exceptional or just different. The paper argues that such a separation from “normal” politics is problematic, both conceptually and empirically. It argues that much can be gained by considering counterterrorism policy through the lenses, concepts and debates which feature in other areas of British politics. The paper then examines two such lenses/debates – depoliticisation and neo-liberalism. An argument is developed that counterterrorism policy is not, in the main, depoliticised, but rather overt, politicised and visible. This prominence, it is argued, is due to the ways in which neo-liberalism has reduced many of the traditional roles of the state. Drawing on the work of Wacquant and Hall, the paper argues that in the absence of such traditional roles, counterterrorism offers the state an opportunity to perform its own “stateness”, to visibly display its sovereign power in a context of ever more (self-imposed) diminished powers.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    This article attempts to explore the aporias of democracy, to show how both procedural and substantive democracy, or at least certain constructs of ‘need’ operate to render the lives of sections of the citizenry precarious. More specifically, in the context of an ongoing civil war in central India between Maoist guerilla and the Indian state, I argue that far from being a palliative or alternative to insurgency, Indian democracy as practiced today – both in its procedural electoral aspects, and its substantive welfare aspects – may serve as an active tool of counterinsurgency and a means of evading accountability.
  • Article
    Recent transformations in the politics of security in Turkey have been linked by many scholars to a global trend defined by a rapidly developing neoliberal security state form. The 15 July 2016 coup attempt, however, seems to disrupt the convergence of the Turkish case with the global politics of neoliberal (in)security. This paper revisits the neoliberal security state debate and argues that the radical scope of the legal, administrative and coercive changes enacted in the Turkish state signals a transition to a more ‘exceptional’ paradigm of security. To this end, the paper adopts the conception of ‘regime security’ and investigates how the AKP government policies have contributed to a party-oriented security paradigm bolstered by executive centralisation.
  • Article
    Since 2010, quinquennial UK National Security Strategies – and the Strategic Defence and Security Reviews that follow – have been based on a public National Security Risk Assessment (NSRA). The purpose of the NSRA is to identify and prioritize UK security risks for the coming five-yearly cycle based on their likelihood and impact. This article recognizes that trading off severity against likelihood is a valuable strategic heuristic. Yet it concludes that until the NSRA can address nine key limitations, it will remain a flawed exercise. Such findings carry implications for UK policy, and for other states operating NSRA-style risk matrices.
  • Presentation
    Full-text available
    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP AND MILITARY LEADER SHIP http://www.onthisday.com/world/power.php Military Power vs Economic Power in History http://www.onthisday.com/world/power2.php Military Power vs Economic Power in History (Part 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military Civilian control of the military http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/civilian-control-military-tradition-began/story?id=43927430 Why There Is Civilian Control of the Military and When That Tradition Began
  • Article
    This article theorizes the social processes through which purportedly liberal democratic states compromise fundamental rights in times of perceived security crises. It has become increasingly common to suggest that a general culture of fear serves both as the motor and the outcome of exceptional security politics. This article suggests instead that the transgression of fundamental rights in the name of security is intimately connected to collective feelings of humiliation and the reassertion of self-worth through efforts to re-establish the integrity of imagined communities. To demonstrate this, the article highlights the dual character of rights, having both a formal and a symbolic function, associated with collective emotions. By theorizing the connections between rights, emotions and belonging the article offers the building blocks for a more nuanced and possibly more accurate understanding of why exceptional security politics tend to elicit such broad public support in spite of its often-glaring contradictions to fundamental principles of liberal democracy. (Online first)
  • Article
    Measures towards post-conflict or post-authoritarian justice have historically relied on the merging of the concepts of silence, violence and impunity in order to create a single promise of justice. Scholars and practitioners in the field usually defend a trifold agenda of breaking the silence about violations of human rights, denouncing systematic violence in the past and fighting impunity as the only way of ensuring that violence never happens again. This trope was mobilized in Brazil in 2014, when the report of the country’s National Truth Commission (CNV) was released. However, in the Brazilian case, truth-seeking also produced its own form of ‘silence’. Whereas the CNV commendably denounced 377 perpetrators as the ‘demons’ responsible for implementing a state of terror during the last dictatorship (1964–1985), it also created a depoliticized and victimized idea of leftist militants as mere dreamers who fought for liberty and democracy in the past. By representing leftist militants as freedom fighters, the CNV silenced their fundamental ideas (and actions) regarding the concept of revolutionary violence and its radical programme of structural change. In this article, I provide an explanation that connects the CNV’s ‘silencing’ of this political project to the unreflective merging between the concepts of silence, violence and impunity in the literature. Via a narrative analysis of the CNV’s report and a critique of transitional justice debates, I argue that the silence on the political project of the radical left in Brazil echoes transitional justice’s silence about the complexities of violence in general.
  • Article
    The emergence of a more elusive and uncertain threat environment has transformed the nature of intelligence, increasing its reliance on civil society partners. Once the work of an insular and carefully select few, intelligence production is now a networked, partially open and extensively public–private enterprise. Most poignantly, new practices of public–private ‘collection’ face Western intelligence services with novel questions about control and accountability – questions to which the services have responded with hopes that by standardizing ‘methodologies’, central command may be retained. Suggesting a more complex picture, this article argues that ‘managing uncertainty’ imply forms of interpretation and choices which cannot be pre-empted by rule-regulation: more than Weber’s ideal of the procedural and rule-bound, it may be his (once central, yet largely marginalized) emphasis on institutional and individual capacities for critical ‘judgment’ that is of relevance today.