Qn. Describe and examine why a state is viewed a formidable security organisation?

According to Dr. Garner, a state is a community of persons more or less numerous,

permanently occupying a definite portion of territory independent or nearly so of external
control of possessing an organise government to which the great body of inhabitants render
habitual obedience. States may be classified as sovereign if they are not dependent on, or
subject to, any other power or state. The types of states include federal states, city states and
nation states, the elements of the state includePermanent population, definedterritory, a
government, Capacity to enter into relation with other states and legality of origin.
Security refers to all the measures that are taken to protect a place, or to ensure that only
people with permission enter it or leave it.security providers include the armedforces, police,
border guards, intelligenceservices, penal and corrections institutionsand commercial and
non-state securityactors, among many others.
Security organisation means an organisation with expertise in security and anti-terrorism
matters recognised by the Administration and authorised by it for the purpose of carrying out
survey, assessment, verification and certification activities.security organisations include
government ministries,parliament, special statutory oversightinstitutions, parts of the justice
sector andcivil society actors with a stake in highstandards of public security
provision,including women’s organizations andthe media, among others.

states as social institutions exist in two environments, on the one hand, there is the internal
environment that is composed of all the other institutions located in the territory demarcated
by the state and their interaction with it and each other. and on other, there is the external
environment composed of all the other states and their interaction with it and each other.
States are involved constantly in attempts at intervening in both environments; that is, they
engage in both domestic and foreign policy (Brown and Ainley, 2009).

Traditional security paradigm refers to a realistconstruct of security in which the referent

object of security is the state in this approach, it focuses on security relations among states
and on the state ‘s endeavour against external threats. This view presumes that if the state is
secure, then so too will those that live within it. traditional security relied on the anarchistic

0
balance of power, a military build-up between states, and on the absolute sovereignty of the
nation-state. It focuses on geo-politics, deterrence, power balancing and military strategy.
(Bajpai, 2000).

The state is viewed as a formidable security organisation because of its positive roles both in
the domestic security management and in the international arena towards state and societal
security and this include the following;

State is a formidable security organisation with legal framework for security policies and
strategies that clearlyallocate responsibility for security provision, managementand oversight
according to the principles of democraticcivilian control of the security sector, rule of law
and respectfor human rights. Oversight within a system of civiliandemocratic control, the
state ensures that security institutions are meetingtheir responsibilities effectively and
efficiently, according tothe principles of good governance.

The state is the only monopoly on the legitimateuse of force. This means that the state is
theonly institution in a society that has the right touse force (or the threat of force) to uphold
rulesabout how people should behave.The state monopoly on the legitimate use offorce does
not mean that the state is the onlyactor that uses force, or is the only legitimateauthority in a
society. Instead, it means that thestate is the only institution with the politicalauthority to
decide when and how force is to beused legitimately in the public interest which makes a
formidable security organisation.

The state ensures the development of human security, according to the Human development
report (HDR) 1994, the state shifted the focus of security from the protection of the state
from military threats to the protection of the individual from multiple threats to their well-
being. Moving the referent object to the individual level is arguably necessary to deal with
the broadest threats. Unlike Walt, this concept of security acknowledges the fact that states
can sometimes oppress their own people; also, individuals come under attack from a range of
threats such as hunger, crime and, environmental degradation which are taken into account
more effectively by human security. Because non-military phenomena can also threaten states
and individuals, some writers have suggested broadening the concept of security to include
topics such as poverty, AIDS, environmental hazards, drug abuse and the like.(Gómez 2013).

The state is a formidable security organizationbecause of the legal obligation to protect and
promote human rights, including the right to social security, and ensure that people can
realize their rights without discrimination. The overall responsibility of the State includes

1
ensuring the due provision of benefits according to clear and transparent eligibility criteria
and entitlements, and the proper administration of the institutions and services. Where
benefits and services are not provided directly by public institutions, the effective
enforcement of the legislative frameworks is particularly important for the provision of
benefits and services.

The state is a formidable security organization because of its national security policy and
strategies. Processes of developing national security policies and strategies provide
opportunities for a country to instigate long-term institutional and systemic change. For
example, such processes can encourage non-discriminatory and accountable law
enforcement, the prioritization of citizens’ needs, and definitions of security actor’s long-term
roles. They offer valuable entry points for security and justice assistance because they
articulate national security priorities and the capacities required to meet them (UN, 2012 ).

The state involves in security oversight. This done through one of the branches which is the
parliament which involves in security decision-making is essential for ensuring public
support and legitimacy. For example, parliaments can review draft laws, providing consent or
suggesting changes, and influence budgets.Maintaining a comprehensive legislative
framework for oversight and management of security institutions is of critical importance.
Such frameworks must be compatible with international obligations and universal human
rights. Scrutiny of draft legislation, amendments to and the adoption, or rejection, of such
laws are parliament’s fundamental responsibility. Without such consistent law-making
activity, the level of national oversight will become less effective overall.(Born et al. 2003).

The state possesses sovereign power which makes formidable security organization,
according to Hobbes argued that the state had unlimited power. his description of power
changes in the transition from the state of nature to civil society. While the zero-sum idea of
power does not change, the author argues that the changed context from a state of war of each
against all to one in which common interests can be realized results in different reasons being
given to justify the use of power. In civil society, the zero-sum conception becomes the
paradigm for the sovereign power of command making the state a formidable security
organization.

From a foreign policy perspective, states attempt to change their environment in accordance
with aims and objectives they have set for themselves. From a structural perspective, states

2
attempt to adapt to their environment, making the best of the cards the system has dealt them.
Either way, states act in the world. the best recent discussion of this topic is that of David
Baldwin, who produces a four-way taxonomy of the techniques of statecraft which provides a
useful starting-point for this discussion. Propaganda he defines as influence attempts relying
primarily on the deliberate manipulation of verbal symbols; diplomacy refers to influence
attempts relying primarily on negotiation; economic statecraft covers influence attempts
relying on resources which have a reasonable semblance of a market price in terms of money
and military statecraft refers to influence attempts relying primarily on violence, weapons, or
force (Baldwin 1985).

The state performs this central task by acting as an effective and impartial arbiter within
society.Through judicial system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of
the state. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not
make law or enforce law, but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. The
judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. This branch of the state is
often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final
appeal, together with lower courts.

However, on the other hand the state is viewed as a formidable security organization because
it still faces challenges internally like secessionists, unionists, revolutionaries, autonomist
movements and rebel movements that continue to cause insecurities like riots,
demonstrations, massive killings, coup detats within the state and externally as discussed
below;

The State is regarded as the best providerof security for their own people, but in today’s
world politics states themselves are perpetrators of breaches of rights of their own citizens
Sometimes the state can bethe source of violence, but the state also has a responsibility to
protect the rights of its citizens. To supportthis argument, the essay will present the state as
aprovider for human security and reviews the assertionof the United Nation Development
program, which suggests that there is a shiftingparadigm of security from state-centric to
human-centric security and how the United Nation Development program views the state
increating difficulty and also providing security for thecitizens. The second argument is that
the state shouldprovide protection on the basis of social contracts tocreate development to
provide equal distribution ofwelfare to society.(Brown and Ainley 2005)

3
The putative state deconstruction mean that the state is now outdated and anachronistic
vehicle for the provision of security. The most powerful northern states show little evidence
of wishing to relinquish ultimate control to international and regional organisation, which is
reflected in the operational weakness of the state. For example, the response to 9/11 similarly
suggest that, while their recognition that a collective international response to al-Qaeda is
essential, it is the states, rather than non-state institutions and groups which coordinate and
oversee this response. (Dannreuther 2004).

A state has been progressively undermined by the forces of globalization from above and by
subnational regionalism from below. This has increasingly removed the state from its
essentially repressive and unjustified monopoly of the use of force and devolved this
authority to regional and international organisations such as the United Nations, the European
union or more diffuse transnational activist popular networks, this has led to sovereignty
being progressively undermined to exert sovereign powers and to have a genuine monopoly
of the use of force. (Robert Jackson 1990).

The conflation of the state with the provision of security, the individual rather than the state
whose security must be protected and safeguarded not least from the states and governments,
which are habitually the principal oppressors and causes human suffering. The scepticism
towards the state is also extended to seeing as far more positive role to be played by non-state
actors instead of the state. for example, the role transitional activist groups and non-
governmental organizations in securing the Ottawa convention outlawing landmines, as non-
state actors for circumventing and constraining the more conservative and conflict-inducing
role of the state. (Price 1998).

The reality is that the state is a Janus-faced entity. Through its coercive powers and ability to
mobilize people and resources, it has the capacity to inflict great suffering and violence not
only on foreigners but also on its own people. The state has undoubtedly been the most lethal
killing force in the modern period. There might be a juncture at which the state has fulfilled
its historic function and provide security such a degree of peace and stability that it can be
discarded as some argue in the case of western Europe. (Dannreuther 2004).

The state isa formidable security organisation because it lacksdemocratic civilian control
which in turn become the supportmechanism for an authoritarian regime. It may take

4
oneconomic or political roles that compromise democracy,leading to arbitrary policy-making,
abuse of power and amalfunctioning legislative system. A security sector thatfunctions in an
atmosphere of impunity, without respectfor principles of democratic oversight, rule of law
andhuman rights, cannot provide credible protection forindividuals and communities.

In conclusion astate is viewed as a formidable security organisation because of its power and
authority to ensure security of its population and the territory in order to achieve it national
security objectives and participation in the international security. However, the state has mis
used it power and authority in a negative way to coerce its population and engaging in
international conflicts as explained above.

References
BROWN, Ch, and K. Ainley. "Understanding International Relations, 2009." A highly
readable and thought-provoking introduction to the theory and practice of international
relations.

Dannreuther, R. (ed.) (2004) European union Foreign and Security policy: Towards a
Neighbourhood strategy. London: Routledge.

Gómez, Oscar, and Des Gasper. "Human security: A thematic guidance note for regional and
national human development report teams." (2013).

Jackson, R. (1990) quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations and the third world.
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Price, R.M. (1998) ‘Reversing the gun sights: transitional civil society targets and
landmines’, international organisation, 52(3): 613-44

Schmitt, Carl. The Leviathan in the state theory of Thomas Hobbes: meaning and failure of a
political symbol. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Un-Habitat. State of the World's Cities 2008/9: Harmonious Cities. Routledge, 2012.

Van der Molen, Irna, and Nora Stel. "2. The changing role of the state and state-society
relations2." Multi-Stakeholder Processes, Service Delivery and State Institutions (2010): 10.