Some commentators and politicians are saying that the 2024 general election is all about security and it is clear that the main parties are using the language of ‘security’ frequently. As Rethinking Security publishes a new briefing on five critical security issues, Joanna Frew reflects on this election’s opportunities for creating change in understandings of security.
As the main political parties launch their election manifestos, we have heard some fairly bleak and disheartening statements from party leaders and others, competing to appear tough on defence. A Conservative party political broadcast focuses on security in an insecure world and what it depicts as Labour’s untrustworthiness on defence, highlighting that many of the current Labour front bench voted against renewal of the UK’s nuclear weapons system in 2016.
For their part, Labour are at pains to say that they have shed Corbyn-era foreign and defence policy and have recommitted to established ideas of ‘national security’, believing that this is critical to appearing trustworthy. Keir Starmer has said that he is prepared to use the nuclear ‘deterrent’, and Labour will commit to spending the same 2.5% of GDP on defence as the Tories. The message is clear, then. Whoever is in government is committing to traditional approaches to ‘national security’ and high levels of military spending.
Space for a different approach?
It may feel, therefore, that there is little scope for change and that parties are set to continue the same old approach to ‘national security’: that the UK is best kept safe by a strong military and power projection. Yet this approach also assumes public support for committing vast sums to militarised security and defence at a time when budgets elsewhere are being cut and public services are struggling. This is also an election in which, quite possibly, a majority of elected MPs will be new to Parliament. We also draw ever closer to the last moments that meaningful action on climate change can be taken.
Of course, many in this country are genuinely concerned about Putin’s ambitions and about possible confrontation between the United States and China. Yet they are also concerned about climate change, about the cost of living, and the NHS. Moreover, the plight of Gazans, Ukrainians and others makes it clear that war does not equal security. For parties to simply try to outdo each other on defence spending and their willingness to use Trident will appear wrong-headed to many.
For these reasons, there is an opportunity and an opening to engage with your parliamentary candidates on a different definition and approach to security policy. If the responses to your questions are “commitment to military spending” or “tough on Putin and China”, probe further. Do they believe that being on a ‘war footing’, as the headlines ran this spring, is creating security for the UK and the rest of the world? What about diplomacy, cooperation and peacebuilding? Might it not be cheaper and more effective to invest in those tools, particularly as conflict will exacerbate the problems of climate breakdown? If migration is a concern, what is being done to invest in conflict prevention, as well as climate adaptation and mitigation in affected countries? Within the UK, what does your candidate think of the Prevent duty and stricter border controls? What other, longer-term solutions might promote greater inclusion and equality?
An alternative vision of security
We need to be part of shifting the meaning and understanding of security within public and political discourse. With a huge number of seats likely to change hands, either to another party or because so many MPs are standing down, engagement with candidates is crucial. New MPs will want to know what is important to their constituents and there are opportunities now to get candidates thinking about the broader approach to security, as well as the specific issues that Rethinking Security members are campaigning on.
We have put together a briefing on five urgent issues that you can use to open a conversation with candidates on approaches to security and will be publishing an analysis of the party manifestos. Use these, as well as the information on issues in our blog and podcast to challenge candidates on the doorstep, on social media or at hustings about what they think security really means.
Our research as part of our Alternative Security Review project has highlighted the need for a new definition of security at the national level, as most ordinary people are far more concerned about human security issues like economic wellbeing and healthcare than projecting strength abroad. Security policy affects us all and should not be left to a small circle of like-minded ‘experts’ and corporations who already gain most from the status quo. Its formulation must take account of the views of ordinary people (the electorate), not least those currently most marginalised and vulnerable, and what makes them feel insecure. We need to be part of creating a new story, one that ties together many of the issues you are concerned about and puts humans and the planet at the heart of security policy.
We need to see security based on sound principles such as justice, solidarity and sustainability, if we are to counter many of the threats that we face. Even if that might be out of step with the headlines that party leaders are pushing, it reflects much of the mood in the country and a new parliament would be wise to hear the concerns of the people it represents.
Read and share: General Election 2024: Five Issues for Building Sustainable Security
The views and opinions expressed in posts on the Rethinking Security blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the network and its broader membership.
Image Credit: Boston Review.
