Ülkü Özdemir

2221612

IR576: Reflection Paper #9

In this paper, privatization of security will be discussed as a trend in the transformation of

security provision. This privatization will be examined from two different perfectives: first,

security privatization as an internal dynamic as a result of neoliberal structural changes, and

second, as an international phenomenon linked with private security companies.

According to Sanchez, neoliberal policies in Latin America generate high inequality, and that is

directly followed by an increase in violence with the resistance from the below. The elite is

militarized, but the rest of the population whose living standards eroded as a result of structural

adjustment policies is mobilized and hostile. Violence becomes a “basic tool for survival.” With

the policy and structure change brought by neoliberalism, informal activities expanded in the

economic sphere while trying to compensate for the employment opportunities by becoming a

part of the urban economic structure. This resulted in the blurring lines between legal and illegal,

legitimate and criminal, or formal or informal.

Moreover, Sanchez argues that the link between formal and informal came into existence after

and was later institutionalized as a feature of the social structure with the commitment to the idea

of free-market, which justified imposing the structural adjustment programs in Latin America. In

the end, relations with criminal elements became a socially acceptable situation for individuals to

be able to survive. As not only the economic system changed but also the social with neoliberal

reforms, a large number of people were excluded not only from the economy but also from the

society, which means that government has does not have enough means to achieve social and
political control. In other words, elected governments lose control over public security, the

legitimacy and relevance of police and military are questioned. What happened is that private

groups arose to take their place and as a result informal economy expanded as the new security

industry generated new jobs for the poor, violent, and excluded. Their services are purchased by

the wealthy, and thus private security became a huge economic activity, including not only

legitimate groups but also para-military ones with multiple formal and informal connections

between them. As privatization happens, some governments sell security services, and

sometimes they allow private violence with the emergence of para-police.

Similar to Latin America, in Turkey, too neoliberal processes aggravated inequalities. As social

unrest emerged, the response to that was the strengthening of the coercive power of the state.

This happened through militarizing and technologically equipping the police forces. International

context was also important in the case of Turkey, as the war on terror allowed the government to

identify its enemies more freely. Bedirhanoğlu et al. claim that AKP was special in the sense that

they were able to manipulate society which also played a role during the transformation of the

police. Moreover, private security was institutionalized as AKP restructured security. Private

security became complementary to the public police force by the law, which legitimized the use

of private security guards by the public police force if it deemed necessary. Hence, private

security guards -as additional troops to police organizations- used for surpassing social and

political dissent. It was no surprise then that the private security sector in Turkey experienced a

boom after 2004. Also, similar to the Latin America case, this restructuring of security had a

class character. Upper classes and the wealthy received security services; however, the security

sector depended upon lower classes and the poor as its labor force.
Avant states that the number of private security companies grew rapidly during the 90s. They

provide security and military services to states, IOs, INGOs, global corporations, and also

wealthy individuals. However, there are also reports that show some private security activities

and individual soldiers linked with international criminal networks that profit from illicit sectors.

These companies are easy to defy classification by country regarding their holders, employees,

and personnel. There are external and internal security services provided by PSCs. Three

categories of external security support are operational, military advice and training, and

logistical. Internal security services include site security, crime prevention, and intelligence.

However, the lines between internal and external became hazy as time went on, which is seen in

the Iraqi case, as Avant argues. This privatization of security advocated by some as bureaucracy

and politics fail to meet some threats, private security provides a way around. However, it could

also be said that precisely because of that by-pass, even though there are benefits for individual

states, in general, political costs of action decreases as a result of power redistribution within the

states. As the executive branches gain power over the legislative, transparency is reduced, and it

becomes easier for commercially interested actors to impact policies. In the end, companies

control security decisions. Moreover, states which do not embrace private alternatives stay

behind others in terms of power and capabilities.

At the end, in Latin America, the degree of poverty and exclusion from society is directly related

to economic activities that are linked with private security. These activities, in turn, reproduce

poverty and other conditions with their connection to the illegal economy that yields the cycle of

violence in which was the public security is preplaced with the private; while the middle class is

able to arm and barricade itself, the poor create violent gangs to respond the threats. Social

control remains unstable as the private interests clash with the state’s aim to preserve public
order and serve the interest of the private sector. Similarly, in Turkey, neoliberal reforms

restructured social relations of security, and international security was subordinated with the

privatization of security and police-private security partnership. As the poor and laboring class’s

conditions deteriorated, as a result, they were also criminalized and excluded from the public

form of policing. As Cheeseman states, during the post-Cold War period, there was a

proliferation of military actors beyond state-based armies or military forces. Private military

companies had been involved in UN peacekeeping and peace-building operations. They also

provided training services for national military and police forces. However, with this

privatization, control of violent tools is handed over to non-state actors. Moreover, also security

becomes something that the private sector can provide rather than being a public and collective

good.