phones, android device, IOS devices, how to, social media hack, technology the trending new ways to do stuff

Monday, October 29, 2018

Approaches to Security Management(secure yourself)

Approaches to Security Management
Approaches to Security Management Managing security has remained an activity that requires the stakeholders to develop connections and relationships in theoretical terms, which assist policy-makers to explore a wide range of policy options, assessing their strengths and weaknesses in addressing the (complex) political, socio-economic and environmental threats to security. The basic approaches to security may include the following:
a) Idealism
The members of this school hold that security can best be managed if government at all levels (from local to world) ensure that a security system ‘based on development of civic culture on inter(national) agreements and treaties, stress on depolarization, demilitarization, transcendence of enemy imaging, and solidarity (Kasali, 2003: 43). This approach is also of the view that democratic governance as the ultimate mechanism for effective security management. Meanwhile, the emergence o World War II had undermined the relevance of this approach in the management of international security particularly as it concerned the issues of democratic order. The experience of the world population has not only shown that democracy cannot guarantee peace and security but some democracies can carryout offensives capable of jeopardizing national and international (security); : This is a theoretical approach that emerged in the 1920s, as an initiative to guarantee world peace and security. This approach opines that security can best be managed through non-coercive or non-violent process, owing to the fact that violence would only give birth to further violence. The use of force or violence within national or international environment cannot guarantee any security.
b) Realism: This is another traditional approach to security, which emerged as a response to the failure of the idealist approach in preventing the outbreak of World War II. The members of this school of thought agree that it is only through the use of coercion and deterrence that international security can be maintained. They also stress that apart from security, peace can only be engendered through judicious application of force or violence, which will generate effective dispute settlement and international security. This approach ensures management of security based on balance of power and multi-deterrence mechanisms. From the realist view point, states make decision in the attainment of their self – interest agenda, by evaluating available policy options and see how each of those options can fulfill or meet their security objectives.
However, in the attempt to manage national security every country has begun to invest in the purchase of weapons to resist not only external security threats
but also internal aggression. In this case, coercive power and military force play fundamental roles in the management of security. They will ensure compliance of state and non– state actors to the laws in the maintenance of world security. Also, in the management of internal security, state should ensure that its legitimate use of violence is reinforced by adequate military capability and mobility. This situation tends to lead to rapidly growing military expenditure. The amount of military hardware and personnel according to this approach, will determine how secure a nation will be. Realist model, therefore, led to arms race, in which states drastically increased their military expenditure in the defence of national sovereignty. In developing countries, increased military budget has created internal tension and structural violence in which the local people have often lacked basic necessities, making them to survive marginally. On the African continent, this problem has attracted deepening political crisis, military coups and counter-coups, inter-ethnic violence, religious bestiality among others. The bottom–lime is that, rather than accumulating military wares for the protection of their various countries against the attacks from external forces, most governments in developing countries use the arms against their own citizens for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons may include tenure elongation, racial discrimination, ethnic rivalry, religious chauvinism etc. The violence experienced in Rwanda and Burundi made Africa a true reflection of Hobbesian state of nature. The madness that pervaded Hutus–Tutsi rivalry was monumental with high degree of bestiality. The violence was a nightmare! Nevertheless, foreign enemies can partner with local insurgents to undermine internal security of any nation as experience has shown since the end of World War II. The experience of the cold war era made great number of world states to align along the West–East polarity. Even, those countries that were not aligned (Non-Aligned Movement) were still mingling between the East and West blocs. Since the end of the cold war, the world has recorded more internal armed conflicts than international wars or aggressions, making it necessary to seek for another approach that can address the problem of increasing local insurgency in Africa and elsewhere;
c) Pluralism: Pluralist approach emerged in the 1960s. This approach was a departure from the state-centred security system that dominated the world system during the early cold war era. Pluralists articulated that balance of power, a key element of realism had not only failed to protect human race against insecurity but it had also aggravated pains that accompanied (such) insecurity.
The world began to experience a security dilemma resulting from the emergent danger posed by the politics of balance of terror where proliferation of weapons has become the order of the day. This approach explains why regional and world organizations have mandated their various agencies to carry out

programmes that can influence international security policies, which may affect the self-interest of some (member) nations. This will bring us to the question of which national interest policies are internationally moral? Pluralists admonish states to discountenance any of their self interest policies that are considered to be immoral or capable of undermining international security;
d) Marxism
Marxist approach contends that the state should control the economy and abolish private ownership of property and every individual should be catered for according to his/her needs. If the state unilaterally controls the economy, selfish pursuits, which form major security threat must be addressed. The issue of selfish accumulation of wealth would not arise if private ownership of property is discouraged. The crimes and threats that crop-up through the struggle for control of resources would have been eliminated, if no individual is allowed to own a property. Nevertheless, struggle for the control of the state resources by individual actors tends to generate tension in the polity and those who perceive exclusion can resort to violence and other forms of criminality like armed robbery, terrorism, and insurgency. Weak nations or developing counties appear to be most palpable victims of such structural tension. In the process, the insurgents engage government forces in armed struggle, and in replenishing their armoury, insurgents and government often use valuable resources (they are fighting over) in the purchase of weapons, most of which come from developed countries. In this case, powerful nations derive enormous economic benefits from such a situation of violence and insecurity in the weak states; : This approach became popular in security studies in the 1970s. According to this approach, economic factors and struggle for the control of state resources are the bases for security relations among states. Within the structure, the struggle for the control of means of production can lead to violent conflict situations between the proletariat and bourgeois.
e) Social Constructivism: This is another approach of security, which emerged in the 1990s, immediately after the collapse of the Berlin Wall (the end of the Cold war). This approach advocates for more cultural understanding of security studies. In international relations as well as national politics, the self-interest of any nation is paramount, and it is considered as the driving force of its policy directions particularly as it relates to meeting its security goals.
State actors have now realized the need to pursue regional interest, even above their own national interests. This approach underscores the emerging interest nations are having towards collective security. This has created a new understanding in security relations among states. State actors have begun to show deep concern in the spill-over effect(s) of any insecurity in their
neighbouring countries, on their own internal security. One of the reasons why Nigeria intervened and ensured the resolution of the armed conflicts in the region, i.e. Liberian and Sierra-Leonean crises, was the negative impact that those violent conflicts would have on her internal security. The civil wars that plagued Sierra-Leone and Liberia generated large amount of refugees in the sub-region, and Nigeria was one of the host countries, that accommodated those refugees. Many of the refugees hosted by Nigeria were not properly disarmed. Some of them came in with arms, which found their way into the hands of some of local criminals, who used the weapons to further terrorize the nations. This situation has posed a great security threat to the nation. Apart from the weapons exchanged for money, some of the refugees joined some local criminal gangs to engage in armed robbery and other violent crimes, constituting a threat to national security. The experience of the countries in the Great Lakes was horrendous as the region did not only generate the highest flow of refugees, but armed conflict also became an infectious disease that plagued a great number of counties in that region. Moreover, in combating crime, several countries have formed international police (INTERPOL-your countrys internationalpolice) community to arrest and prosecute or even repatriate criminal suspects who are creating security problems to any of the member nations. Few years ago, a notorious transborder bandit (Amani Tijani) who was the leader of an armed robbery gang specialising in carjacking, known to have robbed many innocent people of their cars in Nigeria. After robbing their victims, the bandits usually crossed to neighbouring Republic of Benin where the group resided. The cooperation between the police authorities in Nigeria and Benin paid off, leading to the arrest of the suspect(s) in Benin. The suspect was therefore repatriated to Nigeria where he is currently facing trial. By and large, nations now appreciate taking regional approach in the management of their internal security. This is as a result of the (negative) impact that breakdown of order or insecurity in a country can have on its neighbouring countries. It is against this back-drop that countries sometimes sacrifice their national interests for regional interest. It is on record that the rising wave of crime and insurgency in Nigeria can be blamed largely on maladministration, but the upsurge of political strife in Liberia played a part in the security dilemma that Nigeria has since been experiencing; and
f) Human Security: There is no doubt that in the decade preceeding year 2000 witnessed a lot of contradictions and negativities in terms of war, which posed a great threat to national and international security. The spread of HIV-AIDS was rapid during this period with resultant case of pandemic. Global warming has emerged as a cankerworm ready to destroy the human race, and the volcanic nationalism that greeted post-cold war era has become a major source

of state collapse. The subject of legitimate use of violence by the state has attracted a great debate, especially as we consider the unjustifiability in the exercise of power by some governments.
By the 1990s, the attention of the world population had shifted to redefining security and looking for the best approach that could guarantee effective security management, different from the traditional ones that had failed to address the increasing security threats. The search for the best approach led to the emergence of the term human security. This approach advocates for a paradigm shift. Rather than allowing the state to continue to define security, people who make up the state should be the ones to define their own security. Therefore, it is not the function of the state (or government) to determine security imperatives for the people but it is the people who should have the final say in deciding their own security. So, the state traditional security measures of coercion and deterrence are moribund or outdated. Hence, policy-makers in several countries have adopted this approach as the guiding principle of their security laws. The consensus of state and non-state actors is now geared towards appreciating “any security issues, including without limitation, those of a political, strategic, economic, social, or ecological nature” (Vale, 1992: 100). Nevertheless, the theoretical ingenuity brought about by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in its “Human Development” Report popularized the concept of ‘human security’ among the scholars and practitioners in the field of security studies and management (Henk, 2005: 2). We cannot but agree with the UNDP for reaffirming that: The concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of a nuclear holocaust. It has been related more to nation-state than people…..forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people….for many of them, security symbolized protection from the threat of disease, hunger, unemployment, crime, social conflict, political repression, and environmental hazards (UNDP Human Development Report, 1994: 22).
Since the 1990s, this approach has not only become the priciest bride among the state actors but also among several non-state actors including the Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that have acted spontaneously in the popularization of human security as an approach to security. One of the leading NGOs advocating for the global adoption of this approach is the Human Security Network. This organization has been championing the need to “energize political processes aimed at preventing or solving conflicts and promoting peace and development”

It is no news that several nations have articulated the relevance of human security approach in the formulation of their security policies. South Africa defined its national security in its “White Paper on Defence”, which was published in 1996. As contained in the Paper: In the new South Africa national security is no longer viewed as a predominantly military and police problem. It has broadened to incorporate political, economic, social, and environmental matters. At the heart of this new approach is a paramount concern with the security of people. Security is an all-encompassing condition in which individual citizens live in freedom, peace, and safety; to participate fully in the process of governance; enjoy the protection of fundamental rights; have access to resources and the basic necessities of life; and inhabit an environment which it is not detrimental to their health and well-being (South African Department of Defence, 1996).
Similarly, Canada has also incorporated human security approach into its foreign policy formulation process(es). The country has redefined the concept of security from the traditional one to that which guarantees “safety for people from both violent and non-violent threats…..characterized by freedom from pervasive threats to people’s rights, their safety, or even their lives” (Department of Foreign Affairs, Canada, 1999: 5). The country has also backed its new commitment with expending huge national resources in the promotion of human security worldwide especially in form of aids (see

No comments:

Post a Comment