Security or Freedom? The Expansion of State Power in an Age of Permanent Crisis

Introduction: Living in a Constant State of Emergency

What was once considered exceptional has become routine. Terrorist attacks, global pandemics, economic instability, mass migration, and regional wars are no longer treated as temporary disruptions but as permanent features of political life. Governments increasingly frame these developments as continuous threats, requiring extraordinary measures and expanded authority.

In this climate, security is presented as the highest political value. Citizens are repeatedly told that extraordinary times demand extraordinary powers. Yet what often goes unexamined is the cumulative effect of these measures. Emergency powers rarely disappear once a crisis subsides. Instead, they become embedded in the normal functioning of the state.

This raises a fundamental question at the heart of contemporary politics: is security genuinely the foundation of freedom, or has the language of security become the most effective justification for limiting it?

Security and Freedom: A Longstanding Tension

The tension between security and freedom is deeply rooted in political thought. Thomas Hobbes argued that individuals must surrender significant freedoms to a sovereign authority in exchange for protection from chaos and violence. Liberal thinkers such as John Locke later insisted that the primary role of the state was to safeguard individual liberty, not suppress it.

Modern constitutional democracies emerged as an attempt to balance these perspectives. States were granted the authority to protect citizens, but that authority was constrained by law, oversight, and fundamental rights. Exceptional circumstances were acknowledged, yet explicitly defined as temporary.

The problem arises when exceptions cease to be exceptions. In many contemporary political systems, emergency logic has shifted from being a short-term response to becoming a long-term governing principle.

The Normalization of Emergency Rule

Emergency rule is designed to address extraordinary situations. It allows governments to act swiftly, bypass certain procedural constraints, and temporarily restrict rights. However, over the past two decades, emergency measures have increasingly lost their temporary character.

Anti-terror legislation introduced after major attacks was often presented as provisional. Instead, such laws were extended, expanded, and integrated into ordinary legal frameworks. The same pattern emerged during global health crises, where unprecedented restrictions on movement, assembly, and privacy were introduced with limited democratic debate.

This process has led to what can be described as “crisis governance.” In this model, the existence of a continuous threat justifies the permanent expansion of executive power. Crisis becomes not an interruption of normal politics, but its defining condition.

The Construction of the Surveillance Society

One of the most visible consequences of security-driven governance is the rapid expansion of surveillance. Closed-circuit cameras, biometric identification systems, digital tracking tools, and large-scale data collection have become standard features of modern states.

Initially justified as tools to combat crime or terrorism, these systems now operate far beyond their original scope. Everyday activities—communication, movement, consumption—are increasingly recorded and analyzed. Surveillance is no longer exceptional; it is infrastructural.

The critical issue is not technology itself, but control and accountability. When surveillance systems operate without transparency or effective oversight, they shift the balance of power decisively toward the state. Security transforms from a public good into a mechanism of compliance.

Digital Security and the Question of Data Sovereignty

In the digital age, security extends far beyond physical borders. Cyberattacks, data breaches, and information warfare have become central concerns for governments. In response, states have sought greater control over digital spaces.

This has often taken the form of internet regulation, data retention requirements, and expanded monitoring of online communication. While such measures are framed as necessary for national security, they frequently undermine privacy and freedom of expression.

Data has become one of the most valuable resources of the modern era. Who controls it, how it is stored, and for what purposes it is used are questions with profound democratic implications. When digital security is pursued without democratic safeguards, it risks turning citizens into permanently monitored subjects.

Migration, Identity, and Security Politics

Migration has emerged as a powerful driver of security discourse. Large-scale population movements are often framed not as humanitarian challenges but as existential threats to national stability and identity.

This framing allows governments to justify restrictive border policies, expanded policing powers, and exceptional legal measures. Migrants are frequently portrayed as risks rather than rights-bearing individuals, reinforcing social divisions and legitimizing authoritarian practices.

Security politics in this context operates not only on physical fears but on cultural anxieties. By mobilizing identity-based concerns, political actors transform complex social issues into simplified narratives of threat and defense.

The Pandemic as a Political Stress Test

The global pandemic provided a revealing test of modern governance. Governments around the world introduced sweeping restrictions on daily life, many of which would have been unthinkable under normal circumstances.

While some measures were undoubtedly necessary to protect public health, the broader political lesson is clear: societies were willing to accept extensive limitations on freedom with remarkable speed. Questions of proportionality, oversight, and long-term consequences were often sidelined.

The pandemic demonstrated how easily emergency measures can be normalized—and how difficult it can be to roll them back once accepted. It set a precedent for future crises, reinforcing the logic of permanent preparedness and control.

The Politicization of Security

When security becomes a political instrument rather than a technical concern, democratic debate suffers. Governments can frame criticism as irresponsibility, dissent as disloyalty, and transparency as a risk.

Journalists, civil society organizations, and academics may find themselves accused of undermining national security simply for raising questions. In this environment, the boundaries of legitimate political discourse narrow.

Security, originally intended to protect society, becomes a shield for power. The distinction between protecting citizens and protecting authority grows increasingly blurred.

Security Versus Freedom: A False Dichotomy?

The framing of security and freedom as opposing values is deeply misleading. Long-term security cannot exist without freedom, just as freedom cannot thrive without safety. Societies governed through fear and coercion may appear stable, but they are structurally fragile.

The real issue is not whether security should exist, but how it is defined and for whom it is provided. The security of the state apparatus is not the same as the security of its citizens. Confusing the two leads to the systematic erosion of civil liberties.

Is Democratic Security Possible?

A democratic approach to security emphasizes accountability, transparency, and proportionality. Emergency measures must be clearly limited in scope and duration. Surveillance must be subject to independent oversight. Citizens must retain the right to question and challenge security policies.

Moreover, security cannot be achieved solely through coercive means. Social justice, economic inclusion, and political participation are essential components of a genuinely secure society. Without them, security policies address symptoms rather than causes.

Conclusion: From Crisis to Governing Logic

The defining political feature of the 21st century may well be the transformation of crisis into a permanent mode of governance. Continuous threat narratives expand state power while shrinking the space of individual freedom.

This trajectory is not inevitable. The balance between security and freedom is a political choice, shaped by public debate, institutional design, and civic engagement. Whether societies accept permanent emergency as the new normal will determine the future of democratic governance.

Ultimately, the question is not simply whether we prioritize security or freedom. It is whether we are willing to defend a political order in which both can meaningfully coexist.