SIV
Een belangrijk kenmerk van hedendaagse veiligheidsvraagstukken is dat zij vaak zeer
gelaagd zijn, veel kanten hebben en verscheidene sectoren raken. Dit noemen we wicked
problems. Dergelijke vraagstukken hebben vele “eigenaren”. Dat betekent dat de
verantwoordelijke en benodigde publieke en (semi)private organisaties moeten samenwerken
om veiligheidsvraagstukken te kunnen oplossen. Hoe werkt dat besturen en organiseren van
en samenwerken in veiligheid op internationaal, nationaal, regionaal en lokaal niveau? Maar
ook, hoe zijn die niveaus met elkaar verbonden? Internationale gebeurtenissen kunnen
immers lokale gevolgen hebben: denk bijvoorbeeld aan de migratiecrisis en aan het
internationaal terrorisme.
Bij het aanpakken van deze problemen wordt er steeds intensiever samengewerkt tussen
publieke en private partijen – overheid, markt en samenleving – in veiligheidsnetwerken. Dan
kan het bijvoorbeeld gaan om de samenwerking tussen een politie, gemeentelijke handhavers
en particuliere beveiligers binnen gemeenten, of tussen politie en justitie en de Algemene
Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD) bij zware georganiseerde criminaliteit en
terrorisme. Maar ook internationale netwerken als Europol en Interpol kunnen een rol hebben
in een dergelijke integrale aanpak. Wat zijn de en kansen en knelpunten in deze
samenwerking?
Tot slot is er ruimte voor de negatieve gevolgen van ‘veiligheid’ voor de toekomst van de
democratische rechtsorde, zoals verantwoording, privacy en ongelijkheid.
Veiligheidspraktijken zijn geen neutrale instrumenten, ze doen iets in de wereld: er zijn
winnaars en verliezers – zij die beschermd en zij die beveiligd worden. Ondersteunen of
ondermijnen veiligheidsnetwerken een veerkrachtige samenleving? Kortom, wat zijn de
positieve en negatieve gevolgen van veiligheidspraktijken?
1
,College 1 Van Steden & Timmer
Dupont, B. (2004). Security in the age of networks. Policing and Society, 14 (1),
76-91.
Security can also be conceptualized as being produced by various networks of actors—
public and private. Networks are increasingly becoming a key element in the governance of
security. The debate between those who defend the pre-eminence of the state (general
interest) and those in favor of a plural mode of security production (market-oriented).
Security networks are found in both Anglo-Saxon and Continental societies at the local,
institutional, international and informational levels.
The capital metaphor shows how each actor of a security network mobilizes distinct forms of
resources in order to maximize its position in the network. Multilateralization: the growing
array of auspices and providers—demand and supply—that constitute the modern security
assemblage, eschewing the traditional one-dimensional public/private dichotomy. Nodal
governance: policing functions and their different organizing modes can now be characterized
as plural. Ook wel security networks.
Het is moeilijk om problemen te isoleren, omdat ‘profound changes are closely interlaced’. A
trend toward a more decentralized, horizontal, networked society. The exponential
development of information and communication technologies around the globe has, without
any doubt, been instrumental in the collapse of all sorts of barriers that previously corseted
institutions, organizations, communities and individuals inside limited roles and
responsibilities.
The naval metaphor of a “steering” state that coordinates an army of “rowing” surrogates.
Jealous states, which retained their strength, appeared to limit the types of agents involved in
the devolution of responsibilities, and private actors became free to cooperate and compete
with public entities. The need for coordination induced the opening of new communication
channels between previously isolated players, which in turn contributed to the appearance
and reinforcement of partnerships and networks.
The field of security rests on a set of common premises:
1. First is the realization that the monopoly attributed to the state over the provision of
security is more a historical distortion—or at least a temporary anomaly—than a
durable condition. Even if the distribution of legitimate coercive powers and
responsibilities remains a function largely vested in the state, private and hybrid
organizations now command a growing share of what has become a market, and
continuously explore new opportunities.
2. The “public-private” dichotomy that has prevailed until recently fails to account for
the diversity and heterogeneity of the actors involved. The distinction between private
and public space fades, the de-coupling between auspices and providers becomes
prevalent, and security pervades every aspect of modern life.
2
, 3. The governance of security is underpinned by a new risk mentality. This
future-oriented rationality is focused on the prevention and reduction of risk through
the intensive use of statistical techniques. In order to appraise risk properly,
information must be gathered and exchanged intensively between those that
experience it and those who can prevent it. The creation of partnerships and networks
ensure a pooling of resources and a dilution of liability, making risk easier and more
acceptable to handle.
About security networks:
● Castells noted that networks are not structurally homogeneous; they are made of
institutions and internal segmentations of institutions.
● The agents that form them use networks to distribute responsibilities, resources and
uncertainty more evenly among themselves, with an effectiveness and efficiency that
cannot be matched by vertical command-and-control structures (Kempa et al., 1999).
● The density of security networks varies greatly from one setting to another, and only
certain nodes can fully exploit the opportunities this new form of governance yields.
● Some environments, either for lack of economic attractiveness (no solvent market for
private enterprise) or political culture (authoritarian regimes), are not conducive to the
emergence of security networks and instead cement the domination of hierarchical
structures.
● Security networks are porous. Some are complementary or simply co-exist, while
others enter into direct competition. Nor is membership mutually exclusive. This will
be determined to a large extent by the size and the jurisdiction of the organization in
question: national centralized police services are likely to be connected to more
networks than small local agencies.
Four ideal-types of security networks:
1. Local security networks:
2. Institutional security networks
3. International security networks
4. Virtual/informational security networks
Local security networks:
● The exponential growth of mega-metropolises and their sprawling populations require
such an approach.
● The nodes in local security networks comprise traditional social control agencies such
as the police, local magistrates and social services, but also residential communities,
communities of interest, elected officials, business interests, private security
providers, and so on (Bayley & Shearing, 2001; Newburn, 2001).
● Local security networks act as information exchanges on local crime problems and on
the resources that can be mobilized to solve them. They rely on local knowledge and
solutions that transcend institutional boundaries.
3
