The national security paradox

Transparent societies are the cause and manifestation of their openness to dissent and receptiveness to criticism. This openness opens up for them vast vistas of socio-political, economic, scientific, technological and intellectual growth. Therefore, socio-political entities operating on transparent political, ideological, economic and security principles are often defined by prosperity and their distinctive place in the world. However, those formed in structural and functional obscurity meet a fateful fate, defined by stagnation and holistic degeneration. Unfortunately, ours is one of them.

If two things aptly describe the country's history, they are the officially proclaimed "fragile national security" and the "lasting critical juncture". Quite interestingly, the two influence each other: the former paves the way for the latter, while the latter reinforces the former. Though one might rightly wonder why, despite repeated official acknowledgements, the country remains stuck at a critical juncture and struggles with fragile national security. Since the two official rhetoric have holistically defined the country, a fair and nuanced appraisal of the two might help uncover their genesis and underlying intents. Literally, national security encompasses safeguarding territorial sovereignty, citizens, the economy, institutions and governance. Today, it centres around, apart from traditional territorial security, human security and public prosperity. Lately, the latter has emerged to have a greater impact on the existence of the former than the other way around. However, the manipulation of central narratives rarely makes them people-centric.

As national security threats evolve over time, so should the definitions, determiners and nature of threats. That is, who defines the dynamics of national security and the threats facing it? In a democratic setting, it should revolve around, besides the country's sanctity and territorial security, the public good and prosperity. Nevertheless, exclusive security narratives that overlook the prospects of human security transform countries into security states. And in a security state, it's the security apparatus that defines the notions, narratives and threats of national security, ultimately making them the chief architects of the country's socio-political and economic stakes. In other words, the security apparatus attaches its socioeconomic, political and commercial interests to the national security narratives and ossifies them altogether. However, the democratic façade has also made the political dynasties and feudal, courtier bureaucracy shareholders in the state.

Together, they successfully integrated their socio-economic, political and commercial interests into the national security narrative. By doing so, they have, so far, been successful in guarding their interests under the guise of national security threats. This has put the country at the apex of a security paradox, where things that should be treated as security threats are not recognised as such by those in power. Instead, whoever or whatever challenges their ill-gotten stakes, regardless of their invaluable contributions to the public and the country, are deemed national security threats. That is, national security has been designed to be antithetical to the prospect of public prosperity.

Resultantly, the notion of higher defence budgets strengthening national security failed in our part of the world. For no country's 'national security' in the view of those at helm is as insecure as ours. It fears 'X' and defies people's privacy in the name of survivance. It views technology and social media as tools of digital terrorism. Furthermore, it undermines the principles of transparency, dissent and public enlightenment. Constitutional rights, peace and the prospect of public prosperity rarely align with its interests.

However, it doesn't feel threatened by the excesses of the civil, military bureaucracy. The long-held kleptocracy of political dynasties poses no threat to it. Injustice doesn't bother it. Rampant corruption, abject poverty, feudal warlords and the law of lawlessness in Kashmore and Kandh Kot, for example, rarely endanger it. Isn't our national security posture hilarious and hypocritical, too?