Security VS Liberty in a collapsing state

Politics is the delicate art of managing the affairs of people, understanding their evolving desires and thoughts, and making appropriate gambles when necessary with the sole aim of keeping the heart of the people through the right combination of guile and risks.

This essay is concerned with answering two questions viz; “is liberty meaningful without security or is security morally empty without liberty?”; and “In a collapsing state like a civil war which should come first: restoring security or restoring liberty?”

Before moving on a clear background of the topics to be discussed must be provided. ¹Liberty as defined by the blacks law dictionary is; Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of this same right by others; freedom regulated by law. This basically implies that liberty is the freedom to do all except that which the law goes against. Security on the other hand in the context which we are considering it is the state of being safe and free from danger, it implies the safety of the lives and properties of individuals and organizations in a society.The Greek philosophers postulate that ²the state comes into existence for life and continues for the sake of good life. Now we can deduce that security ensures life thereby paving way for the creation of the state. While liberty sustains the continuation of the state by ensuring the presence of good life. ³The Constitution of Nigeria goes further to affirm that the security and welfare of the people is the primary purpose of the government. It is therefore the regular need for sacrifice in the art of managing the affairs of the people that therefore leads to the problem at hand, which is more important; security or liberty?

The ⁴utilitarian school provides that the government by making just law should seek to promote the greater good of the greatest number of people and he provides four utilities that are sacrosanct viz; security, liberty, equality and abundance. Security is said to come first, liberty second and the others could follow in any other. The school of thought clearly provides a framework for the answering of the questions “security or freedom” but through its generalization there's an oversimplification of the relationship between security and liberty and how they interact to ensure the sustainability of a state. The school does not consider the specific circumstances where a clash might occur while dispensing security and liberty alongside the fact that the restriction of liberty in itself to a certain extent might be a threat to the security of a state. In a situation where the government acts on behalf of the common good and declares a state of emergency but the it drags out for such a long time that a tension arises between liberty and security. This is the case of Nigeria in the military regime during the eras of Muhamadu Buhari, Sanni Abacha and Ibrahim Babangida from 1984-1999. During the regime of Buhari the military government argued that Nigeria faced corruption, indiscipline, economic collapse and political instability. This was its rationale in enforcing the state security decree in 1984 which allowed for detention without trial for anyone deemed a threat to state security expressly going against the first principle of natural justice; ⁵Aldi alterem patem. This directly lead to a suppression of constitutional liberty under the pretext of ensuring security. This only got worse after the Buhari regime was overthrown and the June 12,1993 elections were annulled. The government became even more stringent in the already arbitrary arrears and the “security” she intends to provide. It was around this period of political unrest that the Ogoni protest in the Niger Delta erupted. The protest headed by Ken Saro-wiwa was a cry for environmental justice from the oil companies operating in the region. Instead of listening to the woes of the people, the military government treated the protests as a threat to the security of the state. Ken Saro-wiwa and eight other people were thereby executed. The defence “security” in the process led to an increase in domestic tension and a more concerning influence on the Niger Delta militancy that later occurred. We can now infer that when security is enforced and liberty is ignored the government loses the heart of the people and thus a revolution might occur. If the revolution does occur then the security of the state would be compromised even further. Hence politics is said to be a delicate art with the sole aim of keeping the heart of the people.

After all of these have been considered, it is now pertinent that we answer the questions at hand;

IS LIBERTY MEANINGFUL WITHOUT SECURITY OR IS SECURITY MORALLY EMPTY WITHOUT LIBERTY?

It has earlier been stated that liberty is freedom except with limitations by the law. While freedom is said to be a virtue, one which is important for the institution of man and his survival. We cannot but think about the foregoing importance of security to humans as well. To answer this question we have to engage a bit in introspection and ask ourselves how we would react if we have the freedom to move unhindered within the state, but we are aware that there's a high probability that exercising this freedom would lead either to the loss of our properties or even lives. The average human faced with this dilemma is more likely to impose a curfew on himself or even in extreme cases deny himself of this freedom without the need of any higher institution to withdraw his liberty or freedom. Hence, it is reasonable to say that liberty is meaningless without security and even the concept of liberty in the face of war or unrest is nothing but a myth. Now the question of security being morally empty without liberty becomes a battle of MORALITY VS SURVIVAL. This becomes a matter of individual ideals and opinions and thus to some there morality is more important than there survival but to the many of us survival is primal.

IN A COLLAPSING STATE LIKE A CIVIL WAR WHICH SHOULD COME FIRST: RESTORING SECURITY OR RESTORING LIBERTY?

After a civil war I'm of the opine that the government should focus majorly on the restoration of security, before delving into the intricacies of liberty. As it has earlier been inferred in the first question that humans tend to ensure their security and safety before considering liberty. The government doesn't need to take too proactive steps in the restoration of liberty such that the security of the people is breached once again. Rather, they are to try their best to restore security gradually and in the process liberty would naturally be restored to the people. Alas the fact still remains that before unrest and chaos, liberty becomes privilege.

The balance between security and liberty is just one of many that plagues the delicate art of managing the affairs of the people. And in dealing with it politicians must understand the evolving desires of the people and realize that the heart of people is not to be lost as it threatens the foundations and institutions of a state more than any other.

FOOTNOTES

1.)P.918 of the 6th edition of the blacks law dictionary

2.) Read Aristotle’s philosophy in the state

3.) Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 constitution

4.) Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

5.) A party must not be condemned unheard