Concept of Human Security THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF THE NAMIBIAN PEOPLE Lucky R.

Bogatsu
INTRODUCTION

The concept of human security was first brought to the global attention by Dr. Mahbub ul Huq in the UNDPs Human Development report of 1994. The report moved for the expansion of security concept beyond the traditional state centered notion of security, owing to the broad array of challenges bedeviling the human kind which are beyond the scope and capacity of the state. The report led to the establishment of the Commission for Human Security and an invigorated focus on the concept by researchers, NGOs, regional bodies and states in terms of theoretical analysis and the practical implications of concepts objectives. In this paper I will explore the concept of human security, its genesis and purpose, and its relationship with the traditional conception of national security by looking at the prevailing debates for and against the concept. Finally I will offer my views on how Namibia may proceed to safeguard the human security of its people.

The Concept of Human Security The concept of human security has been defined by different actors, largely on the basis of self-interest. To help understand the concept, I will use definitions from global and continental perspectives, which are also very relevant to the Namibian context. According to the Common African Defence and Security Policy (CADSP), human security embraces: human rights; the right to participate fully in the process of governance, the right to equal development as well as the right to have access to resources and the basic necessities of life, the right to protection against poverty, the right to conducive education and health conditions, the right to protection against marginalization on the basis of gender, protection against

Concept of Human Security

natural disasters, as well as ecological and environmental degradation (African union, 2004). The Commission on Human Security on the other hand views human security as: To protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment. Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms freedom that are the essence of life. It means protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations. It means using processes that build on peoples strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity. Underpinning the two definitions are the categories of ``freedom from fear`` and freedom from want``. Also very clear from the two definitions is the shift of the focus to protecting individuals and communities and away from the traditional security concept which is mainly about the states ability to defend themselves against external threat in the realists anarchic international system. The two freedoms are supposed to encompass the broader range of threats against the humankind (Commission on Human Security, 2003). The latter definition also implies that human security is not only about protection of people and societies, but also about their empowerment so that they can ultimately stand on their own. The key referent of human security are the individuals. and vulnerable communities. Human security, also referred to as ``people-centered`` security, emphasizes the protection of the individual and vulnerable communities against the major global threats such as diseases like HIV/AIDS, Malaria, TB, and various influenzas; Transnational and syndicated crime; corruption; poverty and hunger; human rights abuses; discrimination; and human trafficking among others. It places the human beings rather than the states, at the focal point of security considerations. The notion however does not trivialize the traditional concept of security, but rather broadens the view of the challenges facing the state and its people and, by sectoring security, enhances the prospects that these challenges can be effectively managed by both the state and other equally important actors.

Concept of Human Security

Human security and national security are complementary to each other. In the first place the provider of national security is the state and the providers of human security are the government ministries. There may be many other providers of human security but they also need the state for coordination of their efforts. Secondly, both forms proceed from the protection requirement. Human security proceeds from the need for protection of the individual to his/her ultimate empowerment, but itself requires the protection of the state in order to be possible. In emphasizing this reality Zacarias (2003, 42-44 ) argues that human security or ``the idea of a good life`` is not possible in the ``absence of the four pillars comprising of ``peace, justice, order and economics``. These pillars, he further argues, ``must co-exist in a condition of dynamic equilibrium`` for security to be realizable. The state is the principal provider of these pillars and therefore an important agency in the provision of human security. It is therefore evident from the above arguments that human security cannot replace national security; it is not more important than national security; and it cannot be divorced from national security. The concept of human security happened mainly for two reasons: firstly, the state as a principal provider of security is arguably and ultimately providing security for the good of the individuals or communities living within its borders. Surin Pitsuwan (2007), the current Secretary General of ASEAN, cites theorists such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Houme to conclude that ``human security is the primary purpose of organizing a state`` in the first place. After all there can be no state without the people or population. In fact all other forms of security (societal and environmental) are ultimately for the good of the humankind. But all combined are not comprehensive in addressing the security of the individual, hence those challenges directly threatening the security of humankind were securitised under the concept of human security. The security of the individuals, as the key referent of human security, is, therefore, an end in itself. Secondly, the state is not the only purveyor of security in the contemporary international system anymore. The end of the cold war and globalisation brought to the fore new kinds of threats that are largely transnational in nature and therefore beyond the capacity of the state alone (see Buzan B, Ole W & Jaap de W. 1981; Buzan B 1983, and Human Security Now 2003). Besides, it has been demonstrated that in some instances the state is either failing to safeguard security of its people or it is the source of human insecurity

Concept of Human Security

(see Buzan B 1983, 21-30). This state of affairs can be managed through global and regional security regimes and institutions like the UN Commission on Human Security, complimenting and extending the efforts of the state or in some instances policing the state for violations of the principles of human security. Although all proponents of human security agree that its primary focus is the protection of individuals, they, however, differ on the threats that individuals must be protected from. Those arguing for the narrow concept focus on violent threats to individuals, while accepting that such threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity, and economic and social inequity. The proponents of the broad concept as articulated by the UNDPs 1994 Human Development Report and Commission on Human Securitys 2003 report, argue that the threats must be broadened to include hunger, disease and natural disaster because these account for the largest human deaths than war, genocide and terrorism combined (Human Security Report, 2009). There are also some critics who argue that the concept is vague and hence cannot be effective in addressing the intended concerns; that is being defined by anybody, including activists, who wants to used it to serve his/her interests; and that it does not help researchers understand what security means or help decision makers to formulate good policies against human insecurities (see Roland Pains 2001; Tadjbakhch Shahrbanou & Chenoy Anurada 2006). The broad definition, as has been demonstrated earlier, is at the centre of the UN programmes, regional bodies and member countries like Namibia on human security.

Safeguarding Human Security in Namibia The Commission on Human Security ``works through collaborative arrangements, consultations and outreach`` to advance its mandate (Commission on Human Security, 2003). The commission engages in collaborative action with other UN initiatives and agencies, consulting broadly on human insecurities which result from conflict and violence, and on the linkages between human security and development. Of importance to SADC and Namibia in particular are the issues related to poverty, health, education and gender disparities. Research on these areas at both regional and global levels can

Concept of Human Security

inform governments and regional bodies of some of the best ways to tackle human security challenges within their larger national development agendas. Then the question becomes how can Namibia leverage such information to address its specific challenges to human security? Scanning the Institute for Public Policy Research Report on ``Poverty and Inequality in Namibia: An overview``, one identifies a number of problem areas of insecurity in the country. The report identifies poverty and inequality as still prominent features of Namibian society after 20 years of independence. It further observes that the debates by both the people and the legislature on the reasons and possible solutions to these problems are mostly emotional and lack grounding on facts and evidence (Schmidt 2009, 1). The available research such as that provided by CHS and the local institutions must be informing these debates, especially among the elected representatives. The report highlights the following realities of the Namibian human security situation: 1. Poverty is more pervasive in rural areas than urban areas, and varies widely from region to region with the highest prevalence in Kavango at 64% and lowest in Khomas at 8%. 2. Households relying on pensions and remittances are the hardest hit by poverty. These require strategies for generating significant income from productive activities. 3. Subsistence farming accounts for the largest number of dependants at 36%. Therefore if Namibia wants to continue to make positive impact on poverty reduction subsistence farming needs to be given priority. 4. Poorer households and the richest ones gained more from growth of consumption expenditure than the middle class. 5. Namibia still has one of the highest income inequalities in the world at 0.60 as measured with the Gini coefficient. 6. Access to electricity was pro-poor in the period under review from 5% to 11%, but the gap between the rural and urban access is closing slowly. 7. Access to safe, piped water is not making any serious improvements, increasing at 10% for the poor compared to the 19% required to meet NDP3 targets.

Concept of Human Security

8. Access to a flush toilet system increased from 7% to 9% for the poor compared to 34% national average. Urban poor are experiencing declines due to pressures of rural-urban migration. 9. School enrollment by the poor is the lowest in the country at 81% and has experienced the sharpest decline of 5.7% compared to the national average decline of 1.7%. In order to safeguard the human security of the Namibians, I believe these facts have to inform the debates, and human security must also be brought to the top of the national agenda like national security. It also requires new programs and review of the existing ones to address the specific insecurities of different regions and sectors of the population as identified by the above report, in the broader context of national development policy. The response will not be effective if it comes fragmented either. A number of countries have realized this and are moving towards a more concerted effort against human insecurity at policy level. Some, like Thailand, are assigning the responsibility for human security to dedicated ministries, while others are incorporating it in their constitutions (Commission on Human Security, 2003). The later may be calling for too much in the near to medium term but the former will certainly upgrade human security to the same level as military security, integrate activities of key actors, and monitor progress and performance much more holistically at national level. Furthermore the following suggestions will improve the extent to which Namibia can safeguard insecurity: Encourage fair trade and markets to benefit the extreme poor. The success of subsistence agriculture as a major employer and its subsequent transformation into small scale agribusiness requires improved access to markets locally and internationally. In the short to medium term the protection of local production against external competition through targeted and preferential programs can incubate the local industry to be able to stand against external competition. This is necessary to ensure that subsistence farming continues to wean the rural poor from poverty. The ultimate objective being to encourage the commercialization of the sector into agribusiness. This will create opportunities for further employment creation and address many challenges at the local level, like rural-urban migration. The diverse and complimentary institutions if coordinated centrally will ``ensure that markets benefit the rural poor and enhance peoples security, freedom, and dignity`` (CHS, 2003).

Concept of Human Security

Provide minimum living standards everywhere. The CHS report (2003) argues that ``secure livelihoods depend on finding sustained and creative ways of encouraging both income and meaningful work`` using the ``capacity and ingenuity of poor people themselves``. The poor who rely on pensions and remittances, especially, need this kind of empowerment, but the accompanying issues of access to land, inputs, training and education will need to be addressed initially. Further to this, minimum welfare support for those not in paid work, those in chronic poverty and those vulnerable to economic and natural disasters have to be ensured through special and targeted measures. The current situation where victims of disasters, like recently in Caprivi, have to endure for weeks before the national mechanisms are mobilized for their relieve only serves to make the poor even poorer because, in the delay, they lose the little assets that they had before the onset of the disaster. Ensuring minimum economic and social standards below which no one should fall will help to curb the tendency for reversal of previous gains, like it has been experienced in sanitation and access to education by the poor.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, human security, although widely cited and researched is still a contested concept in terms of definition and scope. Its roles in understanding the concept of security and informing policy decision-making are also the subject of continuing debates. It is, however, notable that there is some level of consensus on the threats to human beings which warrant a global response, and that such response is being spearheaded by the UN Commission on Human Security. On the local front, I have highlighted the need to consolidate the efforts of all stakeholders in safeguarding the security of the Namibian people against poverty and inequality. How much the government will achieve its development plans with regard to human security will also depend on the extent to which those in decision making inform themselves, through available research, about these issues and the specific situations, concerning human security in Namibia, before making their decisions.

Concept of Human Security

References Buzan B. (1983). People, States and Fear: The national security problem in international relations. Wheatsheaf books. Brighton, England. Buzan B., Waever O., & Wilde J. (1998). Security: a new framework of analysis. Lynne Rienner. Boulder, Colorado.\ Commission on Human Security (2003). Human Security Now. New York. Marie-Martine B., (2008). Food Security. In The Courier, June July 2008, pp 10 19. Gopa Cartemill. Brussels, Belgium. Matthias Schmidt (2009). Poverty and Inequality in Namibia: An overview. Institute of Public policy Research. Windhoek. Pitsunwan Surin (Oct 2007). Regional Cooperation for Human Security, keynote address to the International Development Studies Conference on Human Security: The Asian Contribution. Retrieved from
http://humansecurityconf.polisci.chula.ac.th/

Roland P. (2001). Human Security Paradigm shift or Hot Air? In International Security Vol 26, No. 2 Tadjbakhsh S. & Chenoy A. M. (2006). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. Routledge. London. UNDP(1994). Human Development Report. New York.

Concept of Human Security

Zacarias A. (2003) . Redefining Security. In From Cape to Congo: Southern Africas evolving security challenges. (pp 31 51). Lynne Rienner. Boulder Colorado.