Societal And Phenomenological Dimensions Of Security In Pakistan – OpEd

Security is often driven by insecurities. In today’s world, threats arise from the collective social psyche and have become an unavoidable part of the social conscience. These threats have become so subjective, in certain cases inter-subjective, just like the concept of state, that it is difficult to differentiate between security and threats.

The line between war and peace has become blurred, making it almost impossible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. In addition, determining whose security from whom and by what means and methods has become the biggest challenge for security practitioners today. Equally challenging is the prospect of eradicating threats such as terrorism and insurgency, or whatever label is assigned to them, completely from society. This makes insecurities a social phenomenon, a permanent part of society that cannot be addressed in isolation from various social factors and can only be minimized to the lowest possible levels.

In the traditional sense, the state is the primary focus of security, with the security and survival of the state being the main objective. In this approach, the security of society and individuals does not enjoy the same level of primacy in the national security of the state. This approach is reminiscent of how colonial or imperial powers treated their colonies, and it has been passed down to the post-colonial nation-states.

However, in today’s security environment and with the use of hybrid means of warfare, this approach has proven to be problematic and has hindered lasting peace and social stability. We are in an era of a shared concept of security where the security of individuals and society is just as important as the security of the state. It is important to recognize that the security of the state is closely tied to the security of its people and society, and vice versa. How to establish this balance should always factor in the counterterrorism/insurgency strategy and national internal security policies of the state. Failing to do so could lead to alienating people, or the society at large, from the state, which may result in support for anti-state actors.

In a post-colonial state like Pakistan, the concept of a nation-state is unfamiliar to its citizens, who believe in a purely ideological concept of the state based on historic Islamic precedents. The concepts of the state differ primarily in terms of fixation of territory, the role of religion in state affairs versus the virtually limitless geography of a state, and the religious legitimacy of the ruler.

Two important elements of political Islam, such as the legitimacy of a ruler and authority over the use of force (the doctrine of jihad), have posed ongoing security challenges for Muslim rulers in these countries. Currently, for instance, 60–70% of conflicts occur in Muslim countries, involving Muslim states and Islamist groups. These parties oppose each other’s authority and engage in jihad against one another while questioning each other’s legitimacy. Thus, the never-ending source of threats to national security and stability from social practices and religion in these countries cannot be fought by military tactics alone.

In Pakistan, for instance, people live in a nation-state established in 1947. Still, their thoughts, behaviors, and actions are framed within an ideological Islamic state that has roots dating back centuries. In this context, the legitimacy of the use of force rests with society or social-religious groups and non-state actors, including the religious cults, as much as the state. However, non-state and social actors sometimes enjoy more legitimacy in the public eye than the state authorities. They do so by questioning the Islamic legitimacy of politically elected leaders, whom they view as Western puppets rather than legitimate leaders of Muslims. This has been apparent in Pakistan through the street power of unelected religious leaders who, on occasion, challenge the writ of the state, sometimes violently, and impose their particular interpretation of religious rule on society. Militant Islamists who threaten the survival of the state also use similar justification to challenge the authority of the state.

The resultant breakdown of the social contract in Pakistan, which is based on the concept of rights and duties enshrined in the constitution to bind the loyalties of individuals and groups with the state and state to protect their rights, has created a significant gap between the state and its citizens. The loyalties of citizens are now aligned with ethnic groups, kinship, religious cults, and social elites rather than with the state. This fractured relationship has had a detrimental impact on various aspects of governing the country, including public policy, internal security, national unity, and overall survival. Additionally, the weakening trust between the state and citizens has become a permanent source of threats to the territorial integrity and social cohesion in the country. Restoring this trust of people in the state and state institutes and the state’s ability to protect its citizens is crucial in addressing threats to national security in contemporary times.

It is important to establish a common point of reference in national security to address social vulnerabilities that pose a threat to the unity and territorial integrity of the country. A social contract should practically bind individuals and society at large directly with the state, with their individual and collective loyalties primarily resting with the state rather than non-state groups and their leaders. Therefore, it is essential to revise the practice of the social contract to strengthen the relationship between the state, society, and individuals to address contemporary security challenges.

Additionally, reclaiming the legitimacy of the use of force is crucial in ensuring security in contemporary times. The Islamic concept of the use of force, which only rests with legitimate authority, not an individual or a proclaimed Islamist group, can shift this religious and social dimension of security in favor of the state. This concept, in its essence, states that the authority with legitimate rights over the use of force can also retract it if necessary. This aspect of the use of force, or jihad, can discourage and de-legitimize the use of force by non-state actors and groups.