Writing about security and democracy

 

Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

Questioning the obsession with security

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has got into the habit of producing strategies. It is a good practice, as it allows to move forward the reflection on priority themes and to draw the attention of the different governments to the need for coordination and joint actions, when appropriate. However, it is a pity that these documents are only to be known in the European District of Brussels and in certain specialised circles, and are not debated in national parliaments and by the public opinion in the various Member States.

The Commission has just outlined another, what it called the Security Union Strategy 2020-2025. It has been developed under the baton of the Vice-President for the Promotion of the European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, who has the task of ensuring the link between the external and internal dimensions of security. In other words, an almost impossible job, as there is no harmony of interests about foreign policy, not even regarding neighbouring Russia. Nor is there the courage to act against those states that pose a threat to Europe's internal stability, such as Turkey, among others.

The new security strategy is, above all, an exercise in enumeration. It provides an exhaustive overview of ongoing initiatives, including those concerning cybercrime and intoxication and misrepresentation campaigns from outside - without any reference to the internal actors who serve as a sounding board for these lying messages. It is all very technical, based on the intervention of police and criminal investigation bodies. It lacks the link to the Global Strategy, approved in 2016, and the Common Security and Defence Policy. It is as if the Commission is just adding another silo to the European political edifice. That is bad. It also lacks an analysis of the vulnerabilities of certain categories of citizens according to age, gender, place of residence, social and economic fragility, ethnic or cultural belonging. That is even worse. 

Anyone who is patient enough to read the document gets the impression that at the end of the reference period, the year 2025, we will have a Europe in which every step of every citizen will be recorded and can be scrutinised. It is easy to get the impression that we will then arrive at an extensively watched society, with gigantic databases storing every detail of our lives. The strategy shows, moreover, that the process has already begun and that it will be accelerated by the progress of digitisation and Artificial Intelligence. The prevention of terrorism and hybrid attacks, which may jeopardise key infrastructure, and the fight against financial crime will be three of the lines used to justify close surveillance, which seems to be inspired by the Big Brother imagined by George Orwell.

Even when it is said that the ultimate goal is the defence of the rights and freedoms of European citizens, we cannot fall into the trap of omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent security. The reason is simple. A security state is always one step away from slipping into an oppressive and manipulative state. Past examples show that political leaders easily fall into the temptation to divert security functions to ends that have nothing to do with consolidating the democratic regime and the real tranquillity of citizens.

Those who do not share this temptation are so often unable to exercise democratic oversight of security institutions. Most parliamentary oversight committees for intelligence services have reduced mandates, limited access, and unsatisfactory results. The strategy now formulated is silent on the alternatives that should be considered so that independent, non-partisan powers, outside of parliamentary disputes, can effectively curb possible security abuses.  The issue of balanced control of the potential excesses of those who observe our daily lives is, however, essential.  And this is because security obsessions are like witches. There are those who do not believe in them, but they are around, for sure! Even in European democracies!

 

The populism is attacking our democracies

Populist leaders will do anything to keep power. They get to power through lies, manipulation of facts, verbal violence, intrigue and appeals to the most primary instincts of people. They keep using the same tactics once at the top of political food chain. They are then particularly dangerous as they have control over the institutional levers of authority and manage to acquire the support of those in the media that love to be obsequious to dictators and are ready to embark on the same disastrous demagogic train. All of them, leaders and their media acolytes, create a special type of enemy, what they call the elites. Everyone that opposes them, or comes up with different ideas, or talks about the respect for rules, institutions and separation of power, is tagged as an elite. The members of the elite are then called enemies of the people. We hear that accusation being thrown at judges, democratic politicians, professional journalists, competent civil servants, and so on.

All this is not really new. What is new and extremely worrisome is to see this type of unacceptable political behaviour taking ground in our traditionally open and democratic societies. The worm is now in our democratic apple. That’s a major development that needs to be combated with clarity of purpose and extremely effective communications. We must not be perceived as hesitating in front of the populists that are in charge or try to get to power. We must show leadership and moral strength.

Yellow vests: the key question

Everything we write and read about the root causes of the Yellow Vests movement is based on political and sociological speculation. We should be clear about it.

We know that the high cost of living, the permanent state of fatigue that comes from suburban life, the ever-increasing tax burden and the many forms of resentment against the professional politicians play an important role in the mobilisation. There is bitterness and anger towards the urban elites and the globalist crusaders. These are the key, most immediate reasons for the demonstrations.

We also know that these areas of misgivings and rebellion combine themselves into a complex social malaise.

But are we witnessing something larger and deeper than what meets the idea? Something transformative? That’s the very question that must be answered to.

On the Yellow Vests

The French Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) have now demonstrated every Saturday since mid-November. Yesterday it was their 12^th Saturday of mass rallies in Paris and other cities and towns of France. We cannot ignore the meaning and the political dimensions of such a movement. It must be better understood, first. Then, we should reflect about the response that should be provided.

I get the impression that both questions – understanding and responding – have not been fully considered.

Many words have been written about the grievances, but they do not explain the persistence of the street protests. Moreover, in winter, which is not the best season to be on the street and public squares. The analysis of the root causes calls for more objectivity and less ideological explanations.

The response the government has adopted is two-pronged: massive police presence during the manifestations, to prevent violence and looting; and the launching of a campaign of national dialogue, to look at issues of taxation, State organisation and political representativeness, as well as climate policies. But both lines of the response are being challenged. They have not convinced a good deal of those complaining, even among those who do not come to the streets on Saturday. 

The matter needs therefore a much more comprehensive assessment. It’s very much on the table.