Why is Security so Difficult to Define

0 Comment

The retired person needs financial security that will see them through their old age without being dependent on an absent or unwilling sibling. The society as a whole needs security from control over other alien societies. The religious beliefs that one follows need protection from influence and attack from other faiths and beliefs. Politically, every individual and society as a whole needs security from attack from other countries which includes protection from unacceptable forms of governance. The religious and multiracial mix seen in many advanced societies has also given rise to the protection of individual and religious/racial sections within a society due to increasing levels of intolerance from other sections. Hence, the complexity of today’s world coupled with growing global interaction (intended and unintended) has made the issue of security quite complex and difficult to define. Old threats like direct attacks (traditional war) have sort of disappeared and are now replaced by new ones like terrorism and financial control. This paper is a review of security with regard to politics in today’s complex world. It is really an explanation as to why security in today’s world is difficult to define due to many factors.Various connotations of political security: It is interesting to note that the concept of political security has changed over the years. Ask a person a hundred years back about security and the reply would inevitably be a blatant attack from another country. Probably, the earliest or even classical notion of security was the use of military force rather than on any ideology. The classical definition of security studies is the study of the threat, use, and control of military force (Hentz Bas 3). But thisperception has changed to a large extent as the following views illustrate. In a sense, the word military force has been relegated to a position of lesser importance. David Lake (as quoted by de Mesquita et al) defines security with a dual point of view – one, freedom from the risk of death or impairment from violence by those external to the state, and two, the ability to accumulate wealth free from external coercion (Mesquita et al 498). This definition appears to give a broad picture of security, but the authors state that it should be narrowed down because of the following reason. A nation can attack another state as a deterrent to possible attacks from the latter.