Before you start reading this entry I must add the following note: It took me more than a week to write this and sometimes it was late at night. Since this is a rather complex issue it is quite likely that this text contains a few grammar mistakes. If anything remains unclear after reading it, then please let me know or leave a comment.
The following entry contains many points also made by Prof. Clemens Knobloch in his essay "Der Präventivstaat und seine Feinde" ("The preemptive state and its enemies")
Diejenigen, die sich lieber die Gedanken in der deutschen Sprache durchlesen möchten, können sich den Text des Prof. Knobloch hier als pdf.-Datei herunterladen.
---------------------------------------
Modern governance
Preemtive state strategies
Another way of public control?
I was inspired to write the following entry after listening to a presentation given by Prof. Clemens Knobloch, a linguist at the University of Siegen.
I will mainly stick to examples from Germany and Britain to underline the points I am trying put across because I found figures and sources for these countries. But the development to be described can be seen in many various states.
Governments as the one in Germany claim regularly that freedom needs to be defended in exotic countries far away, where apparently "terroriststs" are threatening it.
Wikipedia provides us with a pretty well-written summary of how the role of the German armed forces (Bundeswehr) has changed in recent years:
The role of the Bundeswehr is described in the German Basic Law (Art. 87a) as defensive only. Its only 'active' role before 1990 was the "Katastropheneinsatz" (disaster control operation), where the Bundeswehr helped after natural disasters. After 1990, the international situation had changed from East-West-confrontation to general uncertainty and instability. Today, after a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1994 the term "defense" has been defined to not only include protection of the borders of Germany, but also crisis reaction and conflict prevention - or more broadly as guarding the security of Germany anywhere in the world. According to the definition given by former Defence Minister Struck, it may be necessary to defend Germany even at the Hindu Kush. This requires the Bundeswehr to take part in operations outside of the borders of Germany, as part of NATO or the European Union and mandated by the UN.
Source: Wikipedia.Org
Right now Bundeswehr forces can be found in:
In those countries where the German forces are dying and killing to defend the freedom in Germany the media reports about kidnappings of German civilians from time to time.
Looking at the communication efforts of governments in such cases is highly interesting.
Not just regarding the usual question of wether the state should pay a ransom or not.
This question is usually being discussed at the forefront, but it totally distracts from the core of the issue of the "kidnapped German". Usually these are development aid workers, engineers or scientists; briefly said: someone who is in the country involved in military action for a seemingly noble and legitimate cause. Sometimes those kidnapped also belong to a christian fundamentalist organization working for "social development" doesn't really matter in the portrayal.
The effect in such cases is always the same: kidnappings and abductions of German civilians humanise the aims of the government and will make the users of the German media loose their inhibitions towards the country where German soldiers fight wars.
During the "struggle" to get the abductee released the fact that both parties - the kidnapper and the state - actually benefit from the situation seems to be totally ignored.
The fact alone that people do get kidnapped is proof enough for the German public to believe that the according country must be better off with the presence of the German military, since conditions must be totally chaotic there.
Money and political blackmail are usually the kidnappers objectives, which underlines for the consumer of media reports in Germany, that the borders between delinquency and political disorder are fluent where the German armed forces are present to fight the evil in this world.
Every single abduction of this type underlines the necessity of military intervention inside the according country to the German/ Western public and it accepts military action to be legitimate.
The state sending soldiers overseas (in this case the Federal goverment of Germany) usually presents itself as the life-saver and protector for "its" civilians, protecting them from the notorious chaotic coutries overseas. The popular press constantly promoting feelings of tense excitement evoked by the readers and viewers, accentuating the individual fate of the kidnappee and bonding the curiosity on the particular case.
And even if the kidnappee dies in the end, it undermines the necessity of military intervention in the eyes of the public and that therefore "the war on terrorism" (whatever that's suppose to be) seems justified. For the intervening government an abduction in this case is a win-win situation. This might sound cynical but is a fact in our age of massmedia.
The kidnappers and the government, which tries to get the hostage released, are accomplices. This example shows the importance the illustration in the massmedia by the preemptive state. Governments love being present in the media in the combination described above, which is exemplary for the self portrayal of preemptive states. In this constellation (abduction - government) the government can present itself in public as an unfailing and brave player pursuing the noble and uncompromising aim of "security", in an age of systematically spread fears of denormalisation.
How the state evolves
Usually governments that can't or don't want to guarantee for social security tend to focus more on physical "security".
Focussing on "security" is very important for preemptive states. It becomes the most important issue of all. And to make sure that the government can ensure this "security" it has to change laws and constitutions, taking away freedom and put every single person under general suspicion, as a consequence invading individual privacy.
In this context political scientists speak of the "prerogative state". In 1941, German jurist Ernst Fraenkel used “prerogative state” to describe the emergence of Nazi Germany during the 1930s. He describes this system as one in which a dual state is set up: one that operates not under the rule of law, but under the rule of prerogative, and the other, which he calls the “normative state”. (Wikipedia.Org)
The democratic and constitutional instruments remain more or less in place. But in the name of "security" acts by the state can be publicly legitimated that are not in accord with the constitution or laws. For example the raids targetting G8 opponents weeks before the actual meeting involving more than 900 policemen and -women across Germany (in 2007), because they apparently pose a threat to "public security" or are a "terrorist cell". (GlobalPolicy.Org) Or states introduce new laws such as the "Patriot Act" in the U.S. of A. or "§129 [a]" (formation of a "terrorist" organisation) in Germany.
Such illegal actions by a preemptive state are always "populist", they are part of a democracy led my massmedia, which ensures that public acceptance is being created.
For the media an emotional subject like "security" and "fear" is always good for the viewing rate. And by constantly presenting topics of fear, they also promote fear and increase the public desire of a "strong state". The introduction of tools for mass surveillance (e.g. CCTV cameras, surveillance and recording of everybody's online activities and phone calls, recording of airline passanger data) and steps similar to a police-state (e.g. restrictions of public demonstrations, raids of people being part of a so-called "terror-cell", police violence and arbitrariness) seem acceptable to an increasing number of people. And if the freedom is given to a state - then it will always make us of it. States by nature always try to expand their powers and control.
At the end of such a development stands the preemptive terror-state.
People who consciously follow the public discourse can't help but think that one is surrounded by potential catastrophes that can strike anytime.
Due to these circumstances the state is redefining itself: as a preemptive state, that protects "us" from processes of denormalisation, but in return trimming rights and freedom.
It is always an encouragement for the preemptive state when new risk settings are popping up. Where dangers are lurking (for example due to the change of the evironment, due to new technologies, due to new patterns of social behaviour) the preemptive state comes to rescue "us" by providing "security".
Preemptive governments continuously speak of "our" protection, but foremost they mean their own protection!
To be precise, we are all part of a state [at least formally in a "democracy"] - but a state machinery is something totally different of course.
In countries such as Germany, the U.S. of A., England, France, Australia, Canada and many more the main task for the state machinery was to ensure social responsibility of property, equality of opportunity, public access to education, and so on - as long as these motives were generally accepted by the population.
In the past few decades the situation totally changed. First we witnessed the governments withdraw from their classic public responsibilities as described (just take a look at the recent education reforms in Europe promissing more "autonomy" for institutes of higher education [Bologna-Berlin2003.de]). While doing so they don't get tired of continuously repeating to "their" citizens that times have changed and therefore everybody needs to be more flexible, personal responsibility needs to be increased and that every individual is responsible for his/her own fate. People are suppose to become more entrepreneurial, self-reliant and flexible. When public health insurance, public education or retirement pension fail, it goes without saying that we provide for ourselves. Clever investments are all that matter. And governments keep telling "their" people, that it would be dangerous, if it intervenes on these public fields, because that would deprive individuals of their freedoms and prevent people from being proactive.
So in conclusion we all have to rid ourselves from the paralyzing paternalism by the state to be able to fully unfold "our" potential and creativity.
"Soft" and "Hard" prevention
In this context I want to point out how attitudes towards social welfare have changed. In the past one was still allowed to ask what kind of claims under public law he/she has, if he/she happend to become unemployed. Today one is being asked - all in the name of personal responsibility and independency [or freedom] - what he/she has actually been doing to find a new job! With that kind of mentality dominating the public discourse the government can more easily withdraw from its welfare policies and justify "provident social exclusion" and invasion of privacy of people, especially of those depending on social benefits [meaning the poor]. With this kind of so-called "soft-prevention" poor people will get treated as if they were "certifiably insane" and are "incapacitated".
Who is deemed too fat or overindebted, unsuccessful on the labour market or unable to raise his/her kids will be lalbelled "unmarketable". He/She will be obliged to follow certain measures, all for his/her own good. Those individuals who don't become adequately preventively active, will be turned into stigamtized objects of public prevention.
An unfortunately a less know example of direct coherence between "hard" ("anti-terrorism") prevention and "soft" ("provident social exclusion") prevention is the access to account data of all 2200 credit institutions in Germany by the government. Initially the access was introduced for the Public Prosecutor's Department and the police (an adopted measure to support the prevention of "terrorism" and money-laundering). Since April 2005 the Federal Employment Office, Pension and Social Agency, Agencies responsible for the Federal Education and Trainings Assistance Act (Bafög) and housing allowances also have access to the account data.
It is always the same pattern: "terrorism" opens the doors for special preemptive rights for "security agencies", and through the same doors other interested "sociopolitical" parties force their way through. And how does the public or the massmedia react? Apart from very rare exceptions the media constantly repeats: "Those who don't deceive taxes, "social agencies" etc. have nothing to fear."
The effect surely is very different. A government that biometrically measures and is able to follow every step of "its" people, is actively destroying any democratic culture, disposition to take a stand and defending opinions and commitment, engagement and dedication to social causes.
The state, with its political-economic downfall in our times of "globalisation" which was partly welcome and partly lamented about, emerges again in new guise: as a preemtive state, that justifies its authority by systematically fueling and exploiting fears of "denormalisation". This created fear is being managed rethorically - sometimes its "Terrorism" and sometimes "Provision". If the fear is suppose to be lasting, then it usually impacts the peoples whole way of life. State actors benefit from such widespread fear.
It gives them the opportunity to portray themselves as the protecting power towards the dangers lurking everywhere.
It can be observed, that supposedly "caring" topics are being presented in an increasingly threatening undertone. The rhetoric of prevention is spreading in "soft" topics (health, environment, child protection) as well as in "hard" topics (crime, terrorism).
By looking at the guide value "prevention" or "provision" the outlines of a modern and mass-democratic "preemptive-state", which seeks to replace its abandoned socio-political and redistributiv potencies with spectacular risk-management activities. And that preferably in areas, where measures are not covered by valid laws but popular values such as "security", "health" or "climate change" which governments don't get tired of continuously propagating and which nobody seemingly could disagree with.
That distinguishes the preemptive state from the constitutional state.
A few Examples:
To undermine the outlined development above I will provide a few examples of how preemptive states are evlolving.
The relegitimization of (social and legal) disparities and the delegimitisation of dissidents correlate with each other. Governments, usually bound to treat each individual equally by the constitution, are increasingly legitimizing unequal conditions and treatments. For example, instead of providing public schools and universities with resources adequatly, governments refer to private investors and lenders and self-financing. The disparities between the universities is being actively supported by the state for example with the "German Universities Excellence Initiative" or tools (for example competitions) to determine an elite of universities - which then also end up with more funding than the rest, or simply privatising education all together and let market forces decide (the most radical approach to create inequality).
Another example can be found at Guantanamo Bay:
" Since January 2002, the United States has held close to 800 people, from more than 40 countries, in military custody at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ... As of August 2007, the Pentagon said that approximately 355 detainees remain at Guantanamo. Many of these 355 detainees have been held for five years, without charge, and with no independent judicial review of their detention."
- Human Rights First
A clear case of inequal treatment by a government - accepted by many people.
Judical and social disparities are being increasingly produce by the state-machinery, which can be summarized as the machine for "provident social exclusion" of the new underclass, the precarity.
Only a Barbarian could be against it!
Invented and perfectionalized was the "provident social exclusion" by the English "social-democrats". In England they are implementing a centralized childrens' database listing the details of every (!) child in England. Of course all this is being done because of the caring attitude of the "social-democratic" government and sociopolitical reasons. 
In this database they collect everything regarding the social, vocational, educational, criminal and other sorts of careers. Each child will be given a "unique identification number". It will also list the name, address and date of birth of every child and contact details for their parents, doctors and schools. Every child with the age of 11 should take part in a "criminal risk check". The only use for all this of course is for the relevant governmental institutions to intervene at an early stage to prevent crime or "terrorist attacks" from taking place. The appropiate authorities should be able to find out, if at all and when a child is "vulnerable" and in "need of help". That's why the government needs to know everything about the child. Only a barbarian could be against such a "national assistance".
Such a centralized database serving as a tool for surveillance and disciplinary action is unbeatable. Just imagine a youngster knowing very well that at every corner, in every educational institution, every employer, every state actor with which he/she deals with has access to all his/her biographical details - starting from kindergarten till present.
Everybody knows, if someone had problems in kindergarten or the parents' house is shattered. Rhetorically they sell this database as a preventive tool for more "security", but in fact this is the most secure appliance for his/her definite, binding and governmental exclusion. All relevant institutions will believe they know exactly with what kind person they are dealing with.
State-terror will appear as homeland security, as a tool of risk- and healthcare management, as a social prevention. It goes without saying that members of a priviledged class in society will try everything they can to prevent their child from being excluded in the database and not take up the "kind offer" by the state, since that would label their child for the rest of his/her life. (Guardian.Co.UK; Kablenet.Com; TimesOnline.Co.UK; e-Health-insider.Com; Telegraph.Co.UK)
And like other databases the children's database can never be totally "secure". (News.BBC.Co.UK)
But this development can not only be observed in Britain, but also in Germany where the "Kultusministerkonferenz" (alliance of education ministers) is also working on introducing a "nationale Bildungsdatenbank" (students database). (BigBrotherAwards.De [in German]; SWR.De [in German]; taz.De [in German]; KMK.Org [in German])
Rhetoric in public
That it's better to prevent predictable evils and not start acting when it occured with its consequences is self-evident. This enables politics to sell their preemptive actions to the people in the first place. That's what makes it so difficult to argue against preemptive measures regarding youth crime, education, "terrorism" and others.
But the political effect is very different. Under disguise of "prevention" state activity shifts from law enforcement to "risk" management. Be it "soft" or "hard" prevention, generally every individual is under suspicion. Not the "offender" is targetted, but the "potentially dangerous individuals". The "potentially dangerous individual" did not breach any law. But from the prevention point of view he/she embodies a possible future problem or misconduct. He/She is for him-/herself or others a "dangerous" individual. By creating such a category the peemptive state establishes judical and social inequalities. By focussing on prevention the state turns from an entity protecting laws and the constitution into a preemptive state!
Just like the "preemptive military stike" the state justifies any other measure of "prevention" by constantly emphasizing what could or would have happen/d without these preemptive measures.
"Soft" and "hard" prevention can only thrive and find public acceptance in a climate of constant uncertainty and fear.Created "fears of denormalisation" by the massmedia are the most important resources of power for a preemptive state.
That's why for example the Minister of the Interior in Germany (Wolfgang Schäuble) won't get tired talking about the threat of nuclear terrorism and youth crime, the health minister optionally continues spreading "awareness" about the dangers of smoking, obesity, sunbathing or obsolescence and the environment minister keeps repeating the imminent dangers of climatic disasters.
Fear and preventive measures create a circle of interactive amplification. The omnipresence of prevention underlines the omnipresence of the dangers, what in return emphasizes the need for more prevention.
Scenarios of denormalisation have a very high attention value for the massmedia and are therefore much appreciated by the media just as much as by the politics of prevention.
Looking at these tendencies there is a real danger of preemptive states sooner or later co-organizing threats or collaborating in the creation of those themselves, since they need them to legitimize their existence.
-----------------------------
Links that undermine the thesis described:
Police 'stop and accounts' rise by one third - Guardian.Co.UK
A significant part of the U.S. of A. government is interested in introducting an Electro-Muscular-Disruption Safety Bracelet for flight passangers - Consumerist.Com
The total cost of Big Brother Government is almost £20 billion [data for the UK] - The tax payers' alliance [pdf.] + Telegraph.Co.UK
Microwave Ray Guns Control Crowds with Noise - ABCnews.Go.Com
Camera technology to combat anti-social behaviour - eGovMonitor.Com
Be Aware: Police with head cameras - HomeOffice.Gov.UK + Police.HomeOffice.Gov.UK [pdf.]
A new law was passed in Germany now allows the Federal Criminal Police Office to secretly install cameras and bugging devices inside private homes of spotless citizens - Tagesschau.De [in German]
New taser devices for the police force introduced - TASER AXON - phx.Corporate-IR.Net + Taser.Com
FBI ready to demand detailed logs of Britons' internet and travel habits - Guardian.Co.UK + NYtimes.Com
CCTV doesn't keep us safe & new database for CCTV images - Guardian.Co.UK + News.BBC.Co.UK
Hats banned from Yorkshire pubs over CCTV fears - Telegraph.Co.UK
I.B.M. System to Scan Streets at Beijing Olympics - NYtimes.Com
The European Security Vanguard? Prüm, Heiligendamm and Flexible Integration Theory [pdf.]
A whole list of related movies can be found on the following page:
(just scroll down a bit a look at the right side of the screen)
~inSolidaritywithG8activistsInJapan&Worldwide~
