Insecurity and governance in an age of transition

Abstract

The twentieth century has ushered in a period of far-reaching transition, with the globalisation of insecurity as one of its defining characteristics. Cross-border flows, by virtue of their speed, scale, and intensity, have generated global threats to security (e.g. weapons of mass destruction, climate change) but also information and communication systems that vastly compound the experience of insecurity. The two world wars, the dissolution of empires, and the fragility of many states have resulted in the almost continuous reconfiguration of political space. During the Cold War ideology served as a powerful transmission belt for the internationalisation of conflict. In the post-Cold War period religion has performed a similar function, as has the rise of armed non-state actors. The ambiguous and often contradictory conceptions of political space vying for efficacy and legitimacy can be considered both cause and effect of the globalisation of insecurity. In response to these disconcerting trends, new conceptions of security have emerged, some with strategic ambitions (e.g. common security, comprehensive security, human security, responsibility to protect), and others with more limited tactical horizons (e.g. confidence and trust building, preventive diplomacy, early warning). Collectively these analytical, normative, and institutional innovations point to a paradigmatic shift in awareness and practice, which is not to say that the shift is uniform, universal, or equal to the challenge. To bear fruit, this still embryonic tendency towards holoreflexivity has to animate all three arenas of decision-making - the state, the market and civil society. Intellectuals, political and business leaders, functionaries in diverse settings, and numerous non-governmental actors all have to address the nature of contemporary risks and insecurities, their likely consequences and interconnections, and the necessary remedial policies and practices. To this end, complex questions surrounding access to and control of information as well as pedagogical theory and practice need to be radically re-examined to ensure not only holistic diagnosis but also institutional arrangements that can connect remedial responses into some relatively coherent whole. The contemporary whole, it should be noted, is not only global but also plural in that it encompasses diverse social groupings, communities, cultures and civilisations, and planetary in that it comprises the totality of relationships between the human species and the rest of the biosphere.