Should the state continue to be the primary focus of "security" in world politics? Why?

Modern thinking on “Security” in world politics is shrouded with a “state based and external-directed conception” (Bilgin, 2003; 5, 203) that in practice labels sovereignty as quintessential. This mentality means international borders are safeguarded, but in the context of third world nations many face an ‘insecurity dilemma’ arising from domestic ‘threats’ to state security; rather than using the individuals and communities who make up a nation as the referent for security the state is seen and acts as the sole agent of security. Policy makers in third-world countries using this top-down approach put limits on the exercise of domestic freedoms for purposes of state consolidation (Bilgin 2003; 5, 206). The problem here is whether the focus is truly on the people or just the desires of the state; that is, do the state’s privileges come at public sacrifice? If so, then the state is focused on its own survival – that is, state security rather than human security.

Bilgin (2003; 5, 207) says that the absolution of the Soviet threat presented an opportunity to broaden the security agenda and to point to threats faced by individuals and social groups. Rather, the elimination of the competing superpowers scenario allowed for security in traditional assumption of interstate framework to be dropped for focus on the international roles of non-state actors and humanitarian rights.

The question of ‘Who’s security?’ could be addressed by asking whether or not the current ideology of state security (physical, structural and social) is effective. Increasing economic disparity within and between states, hardships for those on the fringes of globalisation and its ‘benefits’, xenophobia against those from less-developed nations, and spreading intrastate conflict merit the need for increased interest in human security.

The failings of the state in multiple global instances show how the state can no longer be seen as the sole agent of security. The notion of state security is not synonymous with individual security; states provide security as a means of gaining more power in relation to other nations. As there is no universally accepted standard of security- different states, cultures, religions, and individuals prescribe to different ideals and standards- social relations become vital, and individuals become referents for security as well as agents.

Security should be emancipation from threats and the fear of such; which threats are prioritised then depends on the focus, but world politics has been forced into risk management by omnipresence of risk. Focusing on societal security rather than empowering the mechanisms of the state is favourable “as collective interest is national interest, failed states do not apply themselves to the collective interest effectively” (Bilgin 2003; 5, 215).

Society is unfixed, and must be viewed as a “process of negotiation, affirmation, and reproduction-instead of as an objective reality or independent variable” (Bilgin, 2003; 5, 213). The components of security are interdependent – disruption in one place affects other parts of the world. A broader security agenda, therefore, requires greater social movements, nongovernmental organisations, and transnational citizens to effectively take in the global scope of security rather than the conditioned focus on analysis of the state.