The concept of the security state has gained prominence in political

theory, international relations, and comparative politics, especially

post-9/11 and in the wake of increasing global security threats.
• A security state prioritizes national security over civil liberties, often expanding the powers of
state agencies, particularly the military, police, and intelligence apparatus. It is closely
associated with surveillance, internal and external threat management, and, at times,
authoritarian governance.

• MAYBEE: Security lies at the core of modern political life in developed states, where the
state ensures both internal and external security and provides basic needs (Mabee, 2009, p.
13).

• The Changing Architecture of the National Security State" by Andreas Busch====>The

"national security state" refers to institutions responsible for conducting security policy.

• BUSCH: FULFILLING its citizens' desire for security has always been seen as a classic
task of the state as well as a justification for its existence

• This argument dates back a long time in the his-tory of political ideas, at least to Hobbes'
description of the Leviathan.

• Paul Rosenzweig’s first lecture lays the foundational debates of surveillance in

democratic societies, structured around three major themes:

• Technology vs. Law

• Delegated Oversight vs. Direct Democracy
• Institutional Clashes vs. Legal Coherence

• This provision of security reflects a dynamic political relationship between the state and its
citizens, crucial for understanding legitimacy.

• Globalization's role: While globalization doesn’t necessarily dismantle states, it

reshapes how they provide and conceptualize security.
• The 20th century saw the emergence of what Mabee calls the ‘security state’,
shaped through experiences of total war and economic crisis.

• The domestic national security state, has grown at a time when state involvement
experienced a reversal of the trend of growth===the elements of the state concerned with
domestic security have experienced growth and structural change., have grown in
manpower, budget, and structural complexity, particularly after the September 11, 2001
(9/11) attacks

• The 9/11 terrorist attacks acted as a pivotal moment, accelerating transformations in the
national security state by prompting rapid legislative and institutional changes across various
 countries

• Key Characteristics:

• Prioritization of internal and external security

• Expansion of surveillance mechanisms
• Preemptive measures against perceived threats
• Legal exceptionalism (e.g., emergency laws, anti-terror laws)
• Weakening of democratic accountability mechanisms

Theoretical Foundations and Key Thinkers

• The "national security state" is a concept that has several meanings, ranging from the
realist state concept in the study of international relations to the concrete construction of the
US security system in 1947-when the National Security Act set up institutions such as the
National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as founda-tions of the
national security state-to a general understanding of the institutions that in any state are
charged with the conduct of security policy (Ripsman and Paul2o1o:

• The security state is not a monolithic entity but a dynamic and evolving system of
governance. It is marked by the expansion of surveillance capabilities, the prioritization of
national security, and the increasing intertwining of public and private actors in security
provision.

• Harold Lasswell's theory of the "garrison state" was perhaps the most influential
attempt at predicting influences from outside threats on the internal workings and
structures of the state.
• Harold Lasswell’s Theory: Lasswell’s "garrison state" theory (1941, 1962) predicted that
external threats, particularly from totalitarian regimes, would lead to a society dominated
by military-police elites, characterized by dictatorial, centralized authority and large-scale
coercion to mobilize resources for defense (p. 548).
• Lasswell argued that constant external threats, especially from aerial warfare, would
necessitate a unified national response, transforming states into highly controlled
entities resembling Orwell’s 1984
• Raymond Aron (1979) critiqued Lasswell, noting that post-World War II developments
showed a reversal of militarization, with "bargaining experts" (lawyers, administrators)
retaining power rather than "managers of violence.
• Outcome: Lasswell’s predictions did not fully materialize, as democratic societies
resisted the extreme centralization and militarization he envisioned.

• The "Preemptive State" Concept:

 • Shift to Prevention: The rise of the "preemptive" or "preventative state" involves states
taking proactive measures to prevent societal issues, including security threats,
moving beyond traditional reactive law enforcement based on concrete dangers .

• Impact on Civil Liberties: This shift risks undermining liberal democratic principles by
reducing restrictions on state executive power,

• Citizen-State Relationship: In a preemptive state, all citizens are treated as potential

risks, altering the traditional dynamic where compliance with laws ensured freedom from
state interference. This creates a surveillance-heavy environment where
inconspicuous behavior may paradoxically raise suspicion.

• Threat to Democratic Foundations: Scholars like Denninger (1990, 2008) and Grimm
(1994) warn that the preemptive state’s focus on anticipating and preventing norm
violations through extensive data collection threatens civil liberties, democratic checks
and balances, and the rule of law

• Michel Foucault – Governmentality and Surveillance

In Discipline and Punish and Security, Territory, Population, Foucault explores how modern
states internalize discipline through surveillance and normalization. His concept of
the panopticon is crucial for understanding modern surveillance regimes.

• Giorgio Agamben – State of Exception

Agamben argues that the state of exception has become the rule in modern democracies.
Insecurity is used as a justification to suspend constitutional rights, creating a permanent
state of emergency.

• David Lyon – Surveillance Studies

Lyon focuses on how surveillance technologies and data collection practices empower the
state, fostering a "surveillance society" where privacy is sacrificed for security.

Types of Security States

1. Liberal Security States
• Democracies that adopt security-first approaches.
• Example: United States post-9/11
• Attempts to balance civil liberties and national security, but often controversial.

2. Authoritarian Security States

• Governance is rooted in control, suppression of dissent, and centralization.
• Example: North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China.
• Little to no oversight of security agencies.

3. Hybrid Security States

• Democracies with authoritarian tendencies.

• Examples: Turkey under Erdo■an, India under increased use of sedition and UAPA laws.

A. Bryan Mabee's Perspective: Evolution of

Security Provision
Mabee (2009) argues that the contemporary security state is a product of the globalization of
security. He traces how the traditional Westphalian model of state sovereignty has been
increasingly challenged by transnational threats, leading to the outsourcing and privatization of
security functions. According to Mabee, the security state is characterized by:

1 A shift from state-centric to multi-actor security provision.

2 Increased reliance on private military and security companies.
3 The securitization of previously non-security issues such as migration, health, and
environment.

This evolution marks a departure from classical security paradigms and signals a more
diffuse and decentralized model of security governance.

• The development of security provision is tied to the rise of citizenship and the expectation of
welfare, protection, and economic rights.
• Security provision initially meant protecting the elite and enforcing social order; over time, it
expanded to encompass broader social welfare goals (p. 23–24).

Paul Rosenzweig: Surveillance and Liberty

Rosenzweig (2016) delves into the tension between liberty and security in modern surveillance
states. In Lecture 1, he asks whether societies can balance freedom and safety or whether they
must sacrifice one for the other. In Lecture 4, he explores how surveillance has expanded in the
U.S., arguing that:

1 Surveillance is both pervasive and increasingly normalized.

2 Legal frameworks often lag behind technological advancements.
3 Citizens are frequently unaware of the extent to which their data is collected and used.

He raises critical questions about consent, transparency, and accountability in surveillance

practices.

How Technology Outpaces the Law

• Most of the current laws were written decades ago (e.g., the Privacy Act of 1974), and thus
poorly address modern digital technologies like GPS tracking, drones, and internet
surveillance (Rosenzweig, 2016, p. 4–5).

• The Inertia of Legal Institutions: Legal changes in democracies are inherently slow due to
bureaucratic layersn contrast, technologies evolve exponentially, as encapsulated
in Moore’s Law,
• Judicial Hesitance

to address new technologies with broad rulings.

• Most surveillance tools (e.g., traffic cameras, drones) originate in the private sector, which
sets the norms for data collection and use, driven by consumer demand—not democratic
debate.

Andreas Busch: Changing Architecture of the

National Security State
Busch (2015) examines how Western democracies have restructured their national security
states in response to new threats. He notes that the architecture of the security state has
undergone significant transformation, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Key features include:

1 Institutional expansion: New agencies and departments have been created (e.g., the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security).
2 Legal changes: Anti-terror legislation has expanded executive powers.
3 Technological integration: Big data and digital surveillance are central to modern security
infrastructure.
4 Erosion of checks and balances: Judicial and legislative oversight have been weakened in
the face of executive dominance.

Busch emphasizes that the national security state is no longer confined to traditional institutions
like the military and intelligence agencies but includes civilian, corporate, and transnational
actors.

II. Historical Evolution of the Security State

1. Pre-modern Periods
• Feudal States prioritized military defense but lacked a centralized security apparatus.
• Monarchies used spies and informants, but not in a systematic fashion.

2. Colonial States
Colonial powers built elaborate security apparatuses to suppress dissent (e.g., British Raj’s
CID in India). Colonized societies were often governed through states of emergency.

• The two World Wars were pivotal in transforming the state into a comprehensive security
provider.
• The post-war era saw the emergence of international institutions (UN, NATO, Bretton
Woods) designed to stabilize and integrate the global system

3. Cold War Era

• Rise of intelligence agencies (CIA, KGB, MI6)
• Post-WWII America feared Communist infiltration, leading to wide-scale surveillance and
McCarthyism. Agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA were fueled by real geopolitical threats
(e.g., Soviet coups, the Korean War, and espionage cases like Alger Hiss and the
Rosenbergs)

• National security became synonymous with ideological loyalty (e.g., McCarthyism in the
U.S.)

The Cold War created a durable architecture of international security governance that
persisted into the post-Cold War world.

However, security was largely viewed through a state-centric lens.

B. Post-9/11 Transformation

• The 9/11 attacks marked a turning point, prompting rapid and comprehensive state
responses to transnational terrorism, with executives dominating decision-making and
implementing long-desired security measures

• Organizational Changes:

• Blurring of Internal and External Security: The traditional distinctions between police
(law enforcement), domestic secret services (constitutional protection), and military
(external defense) have eroded, leading to a convergence of roles under concepts
like "homeland security" in the U.S. and "new security architecture" in Germany
• Examples of Centralization:
• United States: The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002
consolidated 22 agencies with 180,000 employees, including Customs Service,
Immigration Services, Coast Guard, and Secret Service, under one department to
prevent terrorism (p. 552).
• Germany AND United Kingdom
• Rise of the Surveillance Industry: The growth of a private "security economy" or
"surveillance-industrial complex,"

• Technological Changes:

• Security agencies increasingly depend on information and communication technologies

(ICT) for data storage, linkage, and signal intelligence, amplifying surveillance capabilities
• Data Collection Examples:
• Europe: Integration of visa systems, entry-exit systems, criminal watch lists,
Passenger Name Records (PNRs), and RFID-equipped passports to manage
cross-border flows (p. 554).
• GERMANY AND UK
• Surveillance Technologies: Tools like CCTV and automatic number plate recognition NSA
Surveillance:

• National Measures Post-9/11

 • U.S.: Patriot Act (2001) expanded wiretapping, searches; extended 2006, 2011 despite
criticism. US-VISIT used biometrics; Guantánamo and torture policies drew ire; Real ID
Act (2005) stalled (p. 554).

• Germany: Security Packages (2001, 2002) boosted state powers; terrorism treated as
crime; judicial oversight struck down measures (p. 554).

• UK: 2001 Act expanded data collection; centralized state enabled strong executive
action; CCTV, DNA databases normalized (p. 554, 556).

• Establishment of Homeland Security Departments.

• Expansion of intelligence cooperation and data sharing.

• Emergence of pre-emptive security doctrines (e.g., Bush Doctrine).

• Increased funding and authority for security agencies.

• Busch (2015) highlights how the urgency of counterterrorism led to the bypassing of
traditional democratic safeguards.

• BUSCH: The reliance on vast data collection creates analytical challenges, potentially
reducing effectiveness, as seen in the failure to prevent 9/11 due to inadequate analysis
rather than lack of data. Practices like Guantánamo detentions and torture damaged the
U.S.’s global reputation and arguably fueled terrorist recruitment, questioning the efficacy of
harsh measures

• Mabee (2009) notes that these transformations also spurred the privatization of security
functions, embedding them within global supply chains.

IV. Structural Features of the Security State

A. Institutional Expansion and Bureaucratic Growth

Governments created new bureaucracies (e.g., DHS in the U.S., NCTC in India) to centralize
and streamline security operations. These institutions often operate with significant secrecy,
complicating democratic accountability.

B. Legal and Normative Shifts

Rosenzweig (2016) observes that legal regimes have evolved to accommodate expansive
surveillance powers. The USA PATRIOT Act and similar legislation worldwide have normalized
practices like metadata collection, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.

C. Surveillance and Technological Infrastructure

Digital technologies have revolutionized security operations:

1 Use of algorithms and AI for predictive policing.

2 Mass data collection from social media, smartphones, and internet service providers.
3 Integration of biometric data (e.g., facial recognition, DNA databases).
These technologies often operate in opaque environments, raising concerns about misuse and
bias.

D. Private Sector Involvement

Mabee (2009) highlights the increasing role of private actors in security provision, from
contractors like Blackwater to tech firms like Palantir. This blurs the line between public
accountability and corporate secrecy.

Normative Implications and Critiques

A. Erosion of Civil Liberties

Critics argue that the security state undermines fundamental freedoms:

1 Surveillance chills free speech and assembly.

2 Suppression of dissent under the guise of national security.

Rosenzweig (2016) stresses that citizens often unknowingly consent to these erosions,
as surveillance becomes embedded in everyday life.

B. Democratic Accountability and Oversight

Busch (2015) warns of the weakening of traditional checks and balances. Oversight committees
often lack access to classified data, and judicial review is constrained by national security
exemptions.

C. Risk of Authoritarianism

The concentration of security powers in the executive branch risks authoritarian drift. Mabee
(2009) argues that the security state can be co-opted to suppress political opposition and
consolidate power.

D. Ethical Dilemmas in Surveillance

Rosenzweig (2016) notes that surveillance involves complex trade-offs:

1 How much privacy are individuals willing to sacrifice?

2 Who controls the collected data and how is it used?
3 Are there meaningful avenues for redress and transparency?

Case Studies
A. United States

• Post-9/11, the U.S. exemplifies the modern security state.

• Massive expansion of NSA powers (e.g., PRISM program).
• Integration of big data analytics into homeland security.

B. United Kingdom

• Extensive use of CCTV and internet surveillance.

• Public debates around GCHQ and privacy rights.

C. India

• Use of Aadhaar biometric database for security and governance.

• UAPA and NSA used to detain individuals without trial.
• Internet shutdowns and surveillance of dissenters.

D. China

• Most advanced surveillance system globally.

• Use of facial recognition and AI to monitor population.
• Social Credit System integrates behavior monitoring with state benefits.

VII. The Security State and Global Governance

Mabee (2009) argues that the security state is increasingly global. Transnational threats
(terrorism, pandemics, cyberattacks) require cross-border cooperation. This creates networks of
security governance that transcend national sovereignty but lack clear accountability.

Busch (2015) also notes the role of supranational organizations like NATO and the EU in
shaping security policy. However, the diffusion of authority often leads to accountability gaps.

VIII. Contemporary Challenges and Future Directions

A. Big Data and Predictive Security

Rosenzweig (2016) raises concerns about algorithmic bias and predictive policing. As AI
systems make decisions about threats, the risk of error and discrimination increases.

B. Climate and Health as Security Issues

Mabee (2009) observes that climate change and pandemics are now framed as security threats,
justifying further expansion of state powers.

C. Balancing Security and Democracy

Busch (2015) argues for a rethinking of the architecture of the security state to reinstate
democratic checks and ensure transparency. He calls for:

1 Stronger parliamentary oversight.

2 Judicial review of executive actions.
3 Greater public engagement in security debates.

IX. Conclusion
• The security state represents a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the
state and its citizens.
• While it responds to real threats, its expansion poses significant risks to democracy, liberty,
and accountability.

• Scholars like Busch, Rosenzweig, and Mabee highlight the structural, normative, and global
dimensions of this phenomenon, urging policymakers and citizens alike to scrutinize the
powers conferred in the name of security.

• Consolidation of the Security State: Post-9/11, the national security state has expanded
significantly, with increased manpower, budgets (e.g., doubled intelligence budgets in the
U.S. and UK), and legislative activity, contrasting with the retrenchment of other state
functions.

• Paul Rosenzweig’s lectures push us to think deeply about how surveillance fits within liberal
democratic governance.

• Ultimately, a sustainable balance between safety and freedom requires vigilant oversight,
robust legal safeguards, and an informed public willing to question the narrative of perpetual
threat.

Three Core Conclusions by Mabee

1 Reframing International Relations: Domestic and transnational forces must be integrated
into IR analysis, not treated as externalities (p. 39).
2 Expanding the Discourse of Security: Beyond military threats, security must include
economic, social, and political protection.
3 Possibility of Transformation: The state is not fixed—it has evolved through wars,
revolutions, and globalization. Hence, future change is possible and should be theorized.