Neo-Liberalism and Security and Erosion of Democracy

     The origins of the social contract theory can be found in the writings of Plato but is best known under the writings of Thomas Hobbs, and later Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Thomas Hobbes wrote in his book “Leviathan” that in the days were there was no government the “strongest could take control and use their power at any time over others”. It was a time of insecurity, where life was often described as brutal and short. Hobbes’ theory maintained that the people mutually agreed to create a state, only giving it enough power to provide protection for their well-being and the people relinquished any right to that power as the price for protection and security.  Rousseau and John Locke each took the social contract theory one step further. Rousseau explained that the government is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. Thus the will of the people as a whole gives power and direction to the state in exchange for giving up part of their freedoms and liberties. John Locke also based his political writings on the idea of the social contract and stressed the role of the individual when the protection of the state is no longer viable the people not only have the right to revolt but are under obligation to if the state abuses their given power.

Mark Neocleous takes the view that liberty and security cannot be balanced and in fact protection and security has taken precedence. He elaborates on the prerogative which is “the power to act according to the discretion of the sovereign for the public good without the prescription of law, and sometimes even against it” (Neocleous, 2008, p.15). Further there are inherent problems with constitutionalzing the prerogative and that it was sometimes used by rulers for private ends and not the public good” (Neocleous, 2008, p.19).  Neocleous also refers to the doctrine of reason of state that “treats the sovereign as autonomous from morality, the state can engage in whatever actions it thinks right-contrary to truth, to charity, to humanity and religion so long as they are for the public good and the state may act beyond law and the legal limits of state power for the common good or for the preservation of the state” (Neocleous, 2008, p. 18).

     In this sense the state has not only used its power to support neo-liberal ideologies which has turned security into a commodity but has used its legislative power to erode democratic rights in the name of security.  As Henry Giroux (2004) notes, “neo-liberalism has become one of the most pervasive if not dangerous ideologies of the 21^st century. Its pervasiveness is evident not only by its unparalleled influence on the global economy but also by its power to redefine the very nature of politics itself” (Giroux, 2004, Para. 1). It is no longer politics for the people, but politics for the wealthy corporations.According to Giroux (2004) “neo-liberalism wages an incessant attack on democracy, public goods, the welfare state, and non-commodified values. Under neo-liberalism everything either is for sale or is plundered for profit (Giroux, 2004, Para.2).

    The state has used counter laws to expand on existing laws which Ericson states “is an obvious and relatively easy way for political authorities to try to maintain the upper hand in the politics of uncertainty. Counter law measures are also transforming criminal law itself in order to facilitate pre-emptive strikes against terrorists, welfare cheats, corporate fraudsters and anti-social under classes. Substantive laws are reformed and reinterpreted within a precautionary logic. Due process standards evaporate and sentencing structures are creatively devised to facilitate ease of prosecution, conviction and incapacitation (Ericson, 2007, p.25). On March 12-2012 under the Conservative leadership of Premier Stephen Harper the Omnibus Crime Bill C-10 was enacted in Canada. No where can we get a better example of counter law I. This legislation has amended and expanded on existing laws to criminalize the poor, the homeless, minorities, immigrants and refugees.  Neo-liberal opportunists build larger prisons and take over the management and operations of these institutions for profit. They use inmates for cheap labour while ignoring their rights. As Ericson (2007) notes myths are created that crime is on the rise which increases public fear and uncertainty, while the crime index and crime statistic show a decrease in crime. Laws have been expanded for sentencing, creating mandatory minimums in which judicial power and discretion has been eroded to a point that section 24(1) and sections 7-14, (legal rights) of the Canadian Charter no longer has any meaning.  Giroux notes that “under neo-liberalism the state aligns with corporate capital and transnational corporations while, gone are the days when the state assumed responsibility for a range of social needs” (Giroux, 2004, Para.3). Social needs can be defined as rights to education, language, mobility and the freedoms of speech, association, religion and et al. and where the state sees these liberties and freedoms in direct conflict with security, security will predominate.

     Where is democracy when the state cannot be held accountable to the people and they have turned over their responsibilities to corporations? “As the laws of the market take precedence over the laws of the state as guardians of the public good, the government increasingly offers little help in mediating the interface, between the advance of capital and its rapacious commercial interests” (Giroux, 2004, Para.5). According to neo-liberalism governments place is only to support the ideals of neo-liberalism and where security has become marketable commodity security takes precedence over liberties and freedoms. The forces of neo-liberalism dismantle what was historically guaranteed social provisions provided by the Keynesian welfare state a shift to neo-liberalism defines profit making as the essence of democracy and equates freedom with the unrestricted ability of markets to govern economic relations free of government regulation (Giroux, 2004, Para.4).

     As Locke stated when the state abuses their power the people have an obligation to protest, but what happens when freedom of peaceful assembly is mythically translated by the state as a threat to security?  Democracy has been eroded through counter laws where security has taken precedence over liberties and freedoms. Surveillance assemblages, from private policing, to monitoring devices, and surveillance technologies  means the public is constantly monitored and privacy is a privilege of the past. As Ericson notes “organizations, communities and individuals have bought into the neo-liberal program of neo-liberal programs of responsibility not only domestic security but social and national security by both purchasing surveillance technology and buying into expanded and amended laws that will not only pre-empt sources of threats but reduce uncertainties. Where surveillance technology can work for a state with neoliberal ideologies, technology may be used to protest when all other traditional forms have failed.

References

Giroux, Henry, A. ( August 7, 2004). Neoliberalism and the Demise of Democracy: Resurrecting Hope in Dark Times. Retrieved from: http://dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0807.htm

 Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge. Polity Press.

 Neocleous, M. (2008).  Critique of Security. Montreal & Kingston*Ithaca. McGill-Queen’s

 University Press.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Retrieved from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/