The fear of terrorism and the demands of increased ‘public safety’ and ‘public security’
In addition to understanding some of the fundamental terms used in this thesis, it is also useful to understand the theoretical mechanisms through which the ‘public’ and government interact, and how selected actions are negotiated. The fear of terrorism and the demands of increased ‘public safety’ and ‘public security’ in the post 9/11 and 7/7 environment has brought individuals, communities, and government together in unprecedented ways. However, that process is much more complicated than merely invoking the ‘will of the people’ as the average middle school textbook might suggest.
Community fears and insecurity have increasingly become a part of the social discourse as concerns over “personal safety and personal liberties” are thought to be threatened. However, despite anxiety by some and a seemingly sympathetic posture of government, others argue that public expectations are unrealistic. Additionally, because the UK is a pluralistic society, fundamental questions are again raised about whose safety, whose security, and whose liberty are being threatened, and whether all segments of society have an equal voice. This notion of safety, security, and liberty transcends rapidly from being an altruistic and egalitarian concept to one of identity politics where allegations of exclusion tug at the very concept of a democratic society. Exploring the mechanisms of government and the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of that process will help situate the perceptions of public safety and public security in a multicultural society such as the UK.
Although Britain is a country based upon democratic principles, like all other democracies, its processes have had to perpetually ‘adjust’ to meet current needs. As an example, the evolution away from the privatization of Conservative Thatcherism to the communitarian principles of New Labour demonstrates a fundamental change in how the ‘public’ and government interact. Whereas Thatcher sought to “substitute the state… for making choices …of individual citizens,” New Labour proposed “to expand the political process” and the “relationship between the community and state.” These changes not only suggest a change in the way that individuals and government came to interact but that democracy within Britain was becoming more liberal and more participatory. This radical notion of democracy is a perfectly normal process according to Gill, who adds what would be considered “moderate and liberal” today would have been seen as decidedly “radical in the 19th century.” However, if democracy is in a constant state of evolution, can it be said that its fundamental principles and values still exist? The answer is a definite maybe.
Britain, the United States, and many other countries adopted what has been traditionally called representative democracy. As the name suggests, citizens elect representatives to run the government on their behalf through a legislative body. There are several reasons for this type of functionality within the government. Still, two of the more time-honoured and prominent ideas are that because people were historically unable to congregate collectively it was impossible to legislate directly, and that people do not have the time or willingness to devote to the process of government. Irrespective of why the process evolved, a fundamental principle of representative democracy is that governmental power is generated from the ‘consent of the people’ through their elected representatives to develop policy and enact a law. However, over the past several decades, there has been a decline in societal participation and overall trust in government. Increasingly, politics is seen as a “remote arena populated by powers beyond their control pursuing interests that do not reflect the needs of the public…” This sentiment not only suggests that there is a fundamental disconnect in the very principles of a democratic society, but that there is a systemic exclusion that transcends even the traditional concerns of exclusion over race, religion, class, and ethnicity. However, despite the arguments by some who suggest that there is widespread systemic exclusion, it would not be fair to adopt that notion as carte blanche as the following discussion demonstrates.
Following the Thatcher years, the government increasingly began to embrace the idea of partnership, and terms like “involvement, participation, and citizenship” increasingly became staples of the political discourse. In what Thompson calls “a radical transformation,” public policy development has become an increasingly collaborative process in which communities, business, and volunteer groups are in partnership with government. Additionally, these partnerships challenge the way that governmental power and processes have been used, or have at least evolved to be understood. This notion of partnership is essentially a hybrid of representative democracy when compared to its historic foundations or its contemporary adaptations. Perhaps more appropriately called deliberative or partnered democracy, some view this hybrid as “preventative medicine” and a “partial remedy for the social and political deterioration” that exists today.
One of the fundamental elements of government is power, and references to power are often made within the literature and the public discourse. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, governmental power is extended through the will of the people, but it is not uncommon for individuals to feel alienated in their ability to influence public policy. This posits a viable question of whether or not governmental power has become referential? Perhaps the notion that government seizes and retains power was best conceptualized by Max Weber, who saw “…the state as an autonomous organization with an extraordinary means to dominate.”
Although there is no mention of power, the idea of being autonomous with the ability to dominate certainly removes any doubt that there is tremendous power involved. This idea is further expanded by Bauman who states “Modern power was first and foremost about the entitlement to manage people, to command, to set rules of conduct and extort obedience to the rules.” Despite the notions of equal rights and equal distribution of power within democratic societies, the mechanistic structure of the state is arguably an imperfect system that results in unequal opportunity to voice one’s opinion and be heard about the things that affect one’s life. The dichotomous relationship between the people and the state, the notion of power, and the inclusive or exclusive nature of that connection is summarised well in the works of Migdal.
According to Migdal, the state has a normal tendency to want to control the social aspects of the state; the more significant the control, the greater the compliance and ultimate legitimacy of its leaders. However, community leaders and politically active social organizations have similar requirements for control to meet community needs and establish the legitimacy of their leaders. The result is that there is a competing yet symbiotic relationship; communities erode state power through the influence of local society, yet state power cannot be maximized without help and support from that society.
Migdal uses the preceding example to demonstrate that because of the relationship between state and society, and the competition for power, that not everything is open for negotiation; that society and government pick those issues of mutual interest or concern. Returning briefly to the notions of public safety and public security, at face value, it would be easy to suggest that these issues are without question an issue of mutual interest and concern. However, while that is true superficially, these issues are rapidly complicated by inhibited consensus and solidarity as Migdal explains.
“First… urbanization, migration, tourism, mass media, and women’s liberation, and other powerful processes” have all created an expanded public space with a broad diversity of interests and views. Some of those individuals and interests have assimilated into existing social structures, while others have formed new ones. Second, the claim of egalitarianism within the various conventions of society becomes “insidious” because it challenges the established paradigm and “feelings of entitlement” by suggesting that all voices should be heard equally. Lastly, as a combined output from the first two, the development of new structures within society and the rejection of egalitarianism “…have precipitated counterclaims and contentious struggles” about who belongs in the public space and what issues should be debated. Thus the competing nature of the community means that it is simultaneously an inclusive and exclusive process.
Within any mix of society, and especially one that is as diverse and multicultural as the UK, competing interests will always be contentious as one group attempts to have their voice heard over another. Even issues such as public safety and public security that are superficially thought of as universal and uncontested will always generate different perspectives about how that task should be accomplished. The competing interests, the difference of opinions, and the inability of government leaders to hear all of the possible viewpoints, much less satisfy everyone simultaneously, means that some will be included and others excluded in that process. Those on the outside looking in will naturally ask the question- whose safety, whose security, and whose liberty is being negotiated?