Security – are we walking into anarchy?

I am writing from a hotel in the north Coast of Kenya. Security has been beefed up. I passed by a police roadblock, and the police no longer man it.

Instead, there were Navy officers in full combat attire. The one who approached us was very polite. He asked for our IDs and searched the whole car. During our conversation, I discovered that he had studied a diploma course at Strathmore in the late 90s.

As we spoke, he continued searching and said, “Sorry, but it is our duty to check everything. Yesterday we caught a lady carrying two grenades and she looked very innocent.”

After a few minutes, it was over and he politely dismissed us, with warm greetings for his former teachers, whom he was very proud of.

TERRORISM HAS CHANGED OUR LIVES

This simple episode brought the question of how terrorism has changed us and will continue changing us for years to come into our driving conversation. Innocence is lost, and everyone suspects everyone else.

Gone are the days when you could share a bite with an unknown neighbour on a bus, or give a lift to a passer-by in need of transport or even greet a child with an affectionate pat on the back.

Gone are the days when the others were as good as we were, when only thieves would suspect others. Perhaps it was the mirror effect, where each one sees in others one’s own defects and virtues.

Security, or the lack of it, is now at the top of the political agenda. Everyone speaks about it, but we seem unable to do something about it.

Every time there is an explosion or a massacre, we speak of bringing the culprits to book, but the culprits either seem too many or we have too few books for them.

EACH ON HIS OR HER OWN

This has led us into security becoming a private affair. Each one is on his or her own, and unless the trend is reversed, private security companies may in future become more lucrative than tea, coffee, tourism or flower exports.

Security guards and scanners have become the most common feature at every entrance, be it shopping malls, hotels, bars or churches. Everywhere.

Security has gone private and each entity should, it seems, provide for itself and each person fend for himself or herself. It is as if every building in town had suddenly become an airport.

The women’s undressing trend we spoke about last week has brought the security threat too close to our own bodies. It is no longer about thieves or terrorists only, but senseless, blind and cruel mob justice.

Sometimes I wish Congestina were well and strong, to deal with a few of these strippers. At this rate, every woman will literally need a bodyguard.

PRIVATISATION OF SECURITY

The privatisation of security may be necessary when the State cannot guarantee people’s safety. But privatisation of security also means going back to a primitive concept of the State.

Privatising security entails the reversal of our modern State concept into the semi-private feudal systems, a system that curtailed development and the enjoyment of certain essential rights, and from which democracy was only lavished on us recently.

Modern states are entities that bring together people with a sense of belonging or identification, in a given territory. The modern State was founded on a very practical idea. Certain rights are bestowed or given to the State, for the State to look after them on behalf of the citizen.

They remain citizen’s rights, but the obligation to protect them is placed on the State.

KEY FUNCTION OF THE STATE

Security is a key function of the State. Instead of organizing their own Jeshi la Mzee or private armies, citizens are required to pay taxes, which then support the formation, maintenance and training of security forces. In this way, the private possession and use of arms is restricted and security is enhanced.

In the modern State model, citizens do not give up their right to security; they simply give away the exercise of the security function. They place their own security in the safe hands of the State.

The survival instinct creeps in when the State fails to deliver a safe environment. People start searching for arms, first legally and then illegally. The usual justification is the essential right to security and self-defence.

This exodus from the organised security structures into the disorganised private arrangements will in the long run escalate insecurity. The most dangerous aspect is that the State and its citizens may not grasp the seriousness of these private arrangements, where the State loses control and we progressively move away from the modern State model, back to a sort of feudal system, where each man or woman has to fend for himself or herself.

PLAN ‘B’ IS NEEDED

The situation is serious. We are slowly walking into anarchy. Many important questions remain mysteriously obscured.

What are the root causes of Al-Shabaab's infiltrations and attacks? How many Al-Shabaab-type organisations are operating in Kenya? Why are wananchi in the streets turning into criminals? What is the root cause of all this?

As of now, terrorist cells are simply creating chaos in a very disorganized manner, haphazardly and randomly.

What would happen if they gained access to critical information infrastructure such as airport, police, defence and public revenue databases and control settings?

The fight against terrorism has traditionally followed the Israeli-American model of brutal force with detailed intelligence. This model requires tons of dollars and a healthy apparatus, with complicated checks and balances. Kenya does not have this kind of money or apparatus.

It is time to think of a plan B. What is behind national terror attacks apart from revenge? What’s the agenda? Do the terrorists have one? Why is the police response to attacks so slow and lukewarm?

These tough questions may help us redefine our response to terrorism and, if necessary, revise security and policy decisions.

Twitter: lgfranceschi