Security concerns and future conflicts

Transition from security state to democratic dispensation involves population mindset transformation

The process of transition from a security state to a democratic dispensation involves essentially population mindset transformation so that the people must exhibit internal resistance to any undemocratic move by anyone, state or government, its institutions, policies and strategies. There is however another possibility whereby a democracy, slowly and steadily, takes a course wherein a military structure becomes an overarching and an encompassing feature of the system. A point is reached when militarisation of democratic norms takes root and the democracy becomes subdued with a shift in security paradigm or under an emerging pattern of new security order in a region or area. It is quite difficult for a security state to embrace a democratic system with ease; similar is the case with a democracy which is unlikely to slide quickly into an autocracy. Both are similar in outlook yet totally different in internal composition and structural changes. The former is triggered by internal chaos and restlessness while the latter is engineered by external factors. Nonetheless, they are engendered by fear — an imminent danger which at times is created in an artificial or real manner to maintain a fear factor so as to impact the minds of public to accept the new normal of a persistent threat.

In a region, if one country has a traditional security state setting in which it has been evolving for last many years, and its neighbour, traditionally a democracy, is sliding back into authoritarianism, and is employing the strategy of another security state to exhibit a proactive counter strategy and make efforts to corner its ethnic population so that some sort of homogeneity can be developed within the geographical limitation of its borders. This is an interesting situation in which one country is well entrenched into its historical security state syndrome while its neighbour is moving fast on the track of authoritarianism. A set of questions, then, needs to be asked: when do the two countries on their different trajectories intersect with each other? Is there any possibility of an active conflict? Which country can start a conflict — one which is cocooned in an artificial cum real fear or the other which has just developed a fear factor and aims at becoming a regional power with considerable appreciation at international level?

There is a strong possibility that paths of these two countries traverse each other. Such a scenario can have a far-reaching effect especially if both have nuclear weaponry under their sleeves. There are a number of factors that can expedite such a possibility in future. For example, the method used for perpetrating chaos by one country, when confronted by similar methods of hiring youth or criminal elements for elimination of assets of the first country by the second, creates panic and fear. It also engenders insecurity in the first country which has been grappling with security dilemma since its inception. As the second country adopts an aggressive policy based on hiring the citizens of the first country and killing its individuals of concern, it pushes the first country to raise the ante further. This method of escalation also emboldens the military culture in the second country and a change sets in among rank and file of its forces to enhance their role in the internal security matters and changing the military recruitment patterns as well. A short-term military induction is exercised so that nearly 75% inductees, after few years, can retire and be used for irregular warfare. Moreover, as the budgetary expenditure of defence is increased by the second country, it puts pressure on the first one, thus instilling fear and pushing it further into its security syndrome. Though the first country cannot compete the second one in financial terms, it tends to get it going through concessions, black marketing and questionable decisions.

The conflict, from irregular to active, between them starts once the external assistance dries up for the first country and military culture dominates the democratic traditions in the second one. The latter is likely to initiate the conflict as a part of its proactive strategy and over indulgence in internal security matters of the first one.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 7^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.