Issues for discussion:

- the essence of the concept of “securitization”;

- the conceptual construct in the field of national security;

- spheres of life of the state and society that require securitization.

The round-table participants represented the leading state and non-state think-tanks. 

Start at 12:00. Moderator Mykola SUNHUROVSKYI

Razumkov Centre President Y.V. YAKIMENKO spoke with welcoming remarks. He informed those present about the experience of the Razumkov Centre research of various aspects of state and public security, emphasizing the relevance of this topic in wartime. The complex nature of modern theoretical research prompts the need to sum up its results for their implementation in practical policies. This requires the development and broad discussion of a common conceptual construct, being in the focus of today's event.

The project results were presented by the project manager M.V.SUNHUROVSKYI.

Razumkov Center, supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation Office Ukraine, is launching the project "The Concept of Securitization of State Policy and Society and the Prospects for Its Implementation in Ukraine". According to the plan, it should trigger thorough research in Ukraine, pursuing the ultimate goal of ensuring Ukraine’s national security and development during and after the war. 

Today, Ukraine is in a state of critical tension, employing internal and external resources to defend its sovereignty and independence. In addition to the numerical advantage of the enemy and problems with military-technical assistance, there are many internal shortcomings in military-political and socio-economic processes, fraught with negative consequences for Ukraine’s statehood and democracy.

Ukraine is and will long remain in a special state, mobilizing efforts and resources of the entire society to protect its independence, sovereignty, and democratic system.

Such a state requires systematic reconsideration of the principles of Ukraine's home and foreign policy, deep reformation of almost all spheres of life with broad participation of civil society institutions. Ukraine is witnessing the emergence of public initiatives and movements with concepts bearing eye-catching names, such as: 

total defence – mobilization by the state and society of all economic and human resources to protect the country in the event of war, employing both military and civilian institutions for defence; 

reasonable militarization – preparation of citizens for defence, starting with patriotic education at kindergarten, primary, secondary and higher schools. Education of citizens in a positive attitude towards strengthening the country's defence capability, the prestige of military service, and pride for its glorious past. A strong defence industry;

economic militarization – priority development of the defence industry, its private sector; defence industry is the engine of economic development; exchange of technologies between the defence and civilian industries; cooperation with Western partners. 

a defensive democracy – the mode of democratic state governance in wartime, preserving fundamental rights and freedoms;

an armed, militant democracy – a democratic system capable of protecting itself from the pressure of destructive political forces; etc.

The thrust and essence of these initiatives, responding to the current challenges, in our opinion, are rather fragmentary and do not sufficiently meet the real needs of the national security and development of Ukraine.

The purpose of this expert discussion is to elaborate the essence of the actual processes and needs, to agree on the conceptual construct in order to proceed to further constructive research, to assess real threats and risks, to find the tools to overcome them.

In the political discourse, securitization often bears a negative connotation:

- internationally – development of defence capabilities, the focus on aggression (even implicit) arouses suspicion of other states, causes tension between them;

- domestically – strengthening of security institutions arouses suspicion and creates opportunities for the growth of authoritarianism and oppression of human rights and freedoms.

Given these reservations, securitization of the state policy and society in Ukraine during and after the war (democratic securitization) is seen, as a well-balanced mode of state and public activity in all spheres of public relations during crisis and conflict with a focus on ensuring national security while preserving sustainable democracy.

Vision of a securitized state and society in slogans:

Foreign policy: focus on deterring external aggression; strengthening of comprehensive, first of all – security-based partnerships, unions, alliances of democratic countries.

Society: patriotism and high motivation of civic activity; a common stand and concerted efforts; 100% readiness to contribute to the country’s defence; information resilience.

Security sector: structural and functional optimization of the security sector; strategic arrangement of the territory; technological capabilities of law enforcement agencies; strong mobilization reserves; efficient civil-military cooperation; civil defence, including protection of civilians.

Home policy: rule of law; one law for all; democracy capable of defending itself; rational decentralization; reliable social protection of citizens; a reasonable exhaustive list of restrictions on rights and freedoms during a special period; democratic control of the state machinery.

Governance: a process-oriented approach to governance with defence being its main priority; formulation of the state policy in all areas with account of this priority; stable rules, norms, and procedures.

Economy: resilience of the key sectors of the economy; a strong defence industry; innovation; investment attractiveness; standards of corporate governance; strong, mutually beneficial cooperation with foreign partners; access to foreign markets.

We are not going to discuss some ready-made results, conclusions, or statements. All this should come from subsequent studies in various subject areas, with one mandatory condition – a common conceptual construct, a common methodology, as a means of informal coordination and a way to establish interfaces between various studies. The following expert discussions and the project panels will discuss such methodology.

Specific of this methodology, it pursues the creation of a rational system of national security, is adaptable to all spheres of life and rests a certain logic, the initial elements of which are neither capabilities nor even threats, but the objects of such threats and, respectively, their protection. Such objects are to include value-based principles and their bearers, national interests and their exponents, processes of attainment of strategic goals (approaches, methods, resources). Hence, it is intended to ensure the integrity and consistency of the research results and the search of the necessary solutions not according to the principle of “the most efficient of the most economical”, but on the contrary, “the most economical of the most efficient”. 

Possible lines of studies:

• The need for a constructive common perception by society and the authorities of introduction of the policy of total defence: tasks of civic and political education.
• Good governance in setting and implementing the priorities of socio-economic development under severe resource constraints during the war and post-war recovery: tasks of economic engineering.
• Legal principles of restriction of rights and freedoms during the war and post-war recovery: risks to democracy.
• Demographic challenges to the national security and democracy during the war and post-war recovery.
• Interaction between state authorities and local governments: issues of decentralization, distribution of resources, powers and responsibilities.

Main points of presentations:

O.E. BIELOKOLOS, Director of the Center for National Resilience Studies, recalled the history of emergence of the concept of resilience in the context of dealing with COVID 19. He emphasized the role of the non-state sector, public activists, volunteer organizations in ensuring the resilience of Ukraine, as well as the importance of studying its experience of fighting a more powerful enemy. He shared his experience of diplomatic work in Kenya and his impressions of the perception by local politicians and the public of Ukraine's ability to provide food to other countries, despite military losses. He agreed with the proposed definitions of the main concepts.

In his remarks to this presentation, the moderator noted the longer history of studies of the resilience of democracy in European countries, and of economic resilience in Ukraine. He called for a deeper systemic look at the features of the state and society that guarantee their security (foresight, deterrence, protection, stability, survivability, adaptability) and suggested developing a code of laws on special conditions to cover the state of emergency in case of crisis situations of various origins, a special (pre-conflict) period, martial law, and an exhaustive list of restrictions of rights and freedoms in such cases.

K.E.VOITOVSKYI, Chief Consultant to the Strategic Planning Department of the National Institute for Strategic Studies, familiarized the audience with the experience of NISS research in the field of national resilience, which is already known to and used by many state and non-state structures. In particular, a glossary has been prepared, but it is not fully consistent with the proposed conceptual construct. It would be useful to discuss the deliverables of various think-tanks, look for a common ground and coordinate their efforts. 

In his remarks to this presentation, the moderator emphasized the need to clearly structure the concepts of security and resilience. Resilience is not a separate system that interacts with the security system, but one of the properties of that system (state, society), along with the ability to predict, deter threats, protect against them, survive under their influence, that, like others, requires improvement. In this context, the products of NISS are really deep and useful but require clearer structuring.

I.B. KOLIUSHKO, Head of the Board of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform, noted that securitization is a new concept in national security. Institutional support for the activities of the state and society requires careful consideration, especially if internal threats prevail over external ones. Serious challenges may arise after the end of the war with the integration of veterans into civilian life and politics. Ukraine’s weakness in this respect can be used by enemies from both the East and the West. Governance in Ukraine should be aimed, among other things, at forecasting, analysis of risks, challenges and threats, and response to them at the early stages. Its institutional component is not developed in Ukraine. The 2016 public administration reform strategy has failed. There is no structured system of state policy formulation. Securitization pursues two tasks: first, a resilient society, and second, building an efficient system of governance capable of proactive policy formulation. The CPLR is working in this direction, in particular, developing a new social contract for a resilient country capable of development. Those present are invited to join these efforts.     

O.V. SAVCHENKO, Professor of the Department of General Psychology of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Doctor of Psychology, said that the provided materials did not take into account psychological aspects, namely the perception of state policies by man and society. He agreed with the definitions of security and resilience given in the background materials, and added that in a stable state people begin to neglect security and may become dangerous themselves. A person perceives security in the context of restrictions, when decisions are made by others instead of him. But more restrictions mean less freedom. This is a source of protest sentiments. This ratio between restrictions and freedom requires in-depth analysis. In Ukraine, the channels of outreach and communication between the authorities and the expert community and society are not sufficiently established. Communication with society, formation of the culture of security should become indispensable components of national security and resilience of society.

H.P. SYTNIK, Head of the Department of Global and National Security of the Scientific-Educational Institute of Public Administration and Civil Service of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Doctor of Public Administration, Professor: Today, a new social reality is being formed at the global, regional, and national levels, accompanied with the growth of entropy and chaos. Countries possessing the required resources in a broad sense (human, material, information and managerial) will take a worthy place in the new world order. The situation with governance in Ukraine is very poor. Leading state and municipal educational institutions training managers have been liquidated, along with whole branches of knowledge in the field of public administration. Managers, including security managers, do not feel appreciated and wanted by the state. Securitization is a very important area of ​​research in the context of the efficiency of managerial decisions in the security sector. The importance of the foreign policy aspect of security is growing, since everyone is fighting for resources while experiencing a management crisis. This creates the need to enhance the academic component of support for management, improve the qualitative and quantitative indicators of manager training. The conceptual construct is of fundamental importance here. 

R.V. BALABAN, leading research fellow at the Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the NASU, project expert, Ph.D. in Political Sciences: The importance of the project launched by Razumkov Centre stems from the fact that it can and should trigger a set of interrelated studies on the national security of Ukraine. Predictability of threats is an interesting point, to avoid the effect of their suddenness. Each presentation here adds certain new aspects, raising the importance of this project, especially regarding communication with society. It was desirable to develop a security model that would be minimally dependent on internal political fluctuations, or adaptive to them.

O.S. KUCHYK, Head of the Department of International Security and Strategic Studies of the I. Franko National University of Lviv, Ph.D in History, Associate Professor: Securitization should go far beyond the military component, pursue a strategy that guarantees national security in all spheres of life, and be of practical use. It encompassed education, training specialists in the field of security management at both the national and international levels. I have no critical comments on the conceptual construct, except that it should be adapted to different fields of knowledge and practical activity. Attention should be paid to crisis management and activities of society in crisis situations. In this sense, it is important to study the experience of our European partners, share our experience and establish scientific, educational and practical ties with them.

After presentations, the moderator outlined the current state and prospects of the project and called upon those present to make a feasible contribution to its implementation and exchange their results in order to enrich the knowledge of the entire expert community.

In his closing remarks, Razumkov Centre President Y.V. Yakymenko has emphasized that the ultimate goal of the project is to develop a universal methodology, on the basis of which effective strategies and policies for the operation and development of the state and society in presence of many destructive factors will be formed. This is a long way, and we are only at its beginning. At the same time, since the beginning of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, quite effective mechanisms ensuring the resilience of the state and society have appeared (the volunteer movement, development of the private sector of the defence industry, support for refugees and IDPs, operation of the banking system, the energy sector, etc.). They should be studied, developed, and incorporated into the general structure of the national security system. We invite representatives of the expert community to participate in the project and thank the participants of today's discussion for their valuable comments and suggestions.

 

BASIC DEFINITIONS

Democratic securitization is a well-balanced mode of state and society operation in all spheres of public relations in crisis and conflict situations, with a focus on national security while preserving resilient democracy. 

Security is a status (range of statuses) of an object, actor, system and their environment, free of any threats to the implementation of the set goals, or where favourable conditions are provided for their achievement in presence and/or in anticipation of the impact of threats. (Or – conditions, under which an object, actor, system are in a state in which there are no threats to the achievement of the set goals, or favourable conditions are provided for their achievement in presence and/or in anticipation of the impact of threats). Close (but narrower) to the concept of security is protection from threats, which is often used as a synonym in the context of existing threats. Danger is the state of an object, actor, or system in which the impact of threats can or does cause harm, complicates or makes impossible the attainment of the set goals.

The security of a system is ensured by possession of the following features:

• the ability to predict (predictability), prevent (preventability) and invincibility, ability to avoid, to avert the impact of threats;
• if it is impossible to avoid the impact – the ability to remain unaffected (invincibility), resist (resistance), defend (protectability, defensibility) from such impact;
• if the protection is “penetrated” – resilience, i.e. the ability to remain operational, elastic under the influence of certain destructive factors without going beyond the permissible limits of key parameters, and to return to a state of equilibrium (return to a steady state, springiness). Specification of the limits of the system parameters is mandatory in the classical definition of stability of dynamic systems (according to Lyapunov);
• if, as a result of the influence of destructive factors, the key parameters of functionality go beyond the permissible limits – survivability, i.e. the ability of the system to continue functioning in an “emergency mode” and to restore stability at the expense of internal and external resources;
• the features of stability and survivability of a system are enhanced if it can adapt to the influence of destructive factors (adaptability) – especially in conditions of a nonlinear effect of hybrid threats; and vice versa – are weakened if a system (society, state) is not flexible enough (inflexible, rigid), weak and vulnerable, fragile.

Specific definitions of the above concepts may depend on the scale (international, regional, national security) and areas of application (military, economic, energy, information, cyber security, etc.).

National security is the state (range of states) of a society, state and their environments, free of threats to national values, their bearers (people, society, person, public and state institutions, business), strategic development goals (national interests) and the processes of their implementation, or where they are reliably protected from existing and potential threats and resistant to their impact. 

Criteria:

1. Steady security. This is the highest level of security; it means that

(a) it is surely possible to remove the conditions for the emergence of internal and external contradictions;

or 

(b) the arising contradictions can be removed at the stage of their emergence;

or 

(c) even the presence of contradictions does not significantly threaten national interests.

1. Reliable protection. This is a more realistic level of the protection system efficiency, which is characterized by 

(a) the impossibility to avoid aggravation of tension, pre-conflict or conflict situations and the impact of threats;

but

(b) the beginning of the impact of threats, the emergence of a conflict is timely detected;

and 

(c) tension (pre-conflict situation) can be contained and will not develop into a conflict;

or 

(d) in the event of a conflict, it can be timely contained, avoiding significant losses, by using the reserves provided for this;

or 

(e) it is impossible to localize a conflict, but the institutions of the state and society, the economy retain functionality within acceptable limits and the ability to return to the regular mode of operation;

or 

(e) the conflict ends on generally acceptable conditions for the country;

and 

(e) the negative consequences of the conflict can be made up for.

III. Critical state of the defence system. This is a dangerous state, where: 

(a) it is impossible to avoid the conflict;

moreover,

(b) to settle the conflict, it is necessary to use all available capabilities and resources, which, due to severe resource limitations, may cause significant harm to the national interests;

or

(c) the conflict may be generally contained, but the country may suffer significant losses;

moreover 

(d) remedy of the consequences of the conflict will significantly hinder or even make it impossible to achieve national interests;

or

(e) the conflict may not be settled in the country's favour (by means of repudiation from the achievement certain important interests), but in general these losses may still be partially made up for.

1. The defence system is destroyed. This is a state when it turns out that the available resources and sources of their replenishment are insufficient to organize defence – the threats are insurmountable. This requires reassessment of the situation, changes in the system of basic needs, national interests, strategic goals, approaches to the defence system.

Priority is the preference of a certain goal, result, method, line of action, compared to others. Priorities set during planning (in particular, of socio-economic development, security) are categorized as political and technological. 

Political priorities are set at the stages of formulation of concepts and strategies and reflect, firstly, the inclination of society and the political leadership of the state to certain strategic lines and goals, and secondly, their readiness for risks, limitations and losses for the goals defined as priorities.

When setting and attaining political priorities, typical errors can be observed. Often, attempts are made to allocate budget resources on the basis of these priorities. However, at the conceptual and strategic stages, there is no sufficient information about the methods of attainment of strategic goals, their technological saturation, no sufficient idea of ​​the share of expenses for the implementation of the relevant lines (measures) in the “package” of budget proposals.

In many cases, previous experience is used to set political priorities and allocate budget expenses, including summary financial indicators (percentages of expenditures on social security, defence, science, education, etc.). As a rule, such calculations are based on previous (not always positive) trends in the budgeting and socio-economic development of previous years, and therefore may lead to the preservation of negative trends and do not contribute to the improvement of these processes.

Hence, at the stage of formulation of concepts and strategies it is too early to determine the final distribution of budgetary resources: this can be done only approximately, tentatively – as the framework conditions for possible expenditure of resource, their limitations, which will be elaborated later. 

More detailed justification of priorities and resource requirements occurs at the stage of programming. At this stage, not only is the cost of certain measures calculated, but their sequence and technological saturation are determined in detail, and on this basis and with account of the aforementioned political priorities, the needs for funds at the implementation stages are assessed. 

Therefore, technological priority means economically justified willingness to give preference to certain strategic lines, goals, and methods of their attainment. Technological priorities are reflected in the volume and sequence of resource allocation. These priorities are set at the programming stage, during detailed consideration and choice of the methods for attainment of intermediate and end results, where the technological saturation of these methods is clarified.

In practice, in some cases, if the development of the strategy and programme is carried out by a permanent team of performers, the processes of setting political and technological priorities may be combined. But such combination may occur no earlier than at the stage of coordination of resources and time regarding the lines and measures of attainment of strategic goals.                                                             

It should be noted that under strict resource or time limitations, errors in priorities may be seen as threats or negative factors that can render the process of attainment of national interests unrealistic, that is, make it impossible to achieve the set strategic goals.

Challenge to national security is a problem in the attainment of vital national interests, for adequate response to which the state or society lacks forces and means. A problem in this sense is understood as a complication of attainment of strategic needs, of transformation from the current state to the desired one. A problem situation is characterized by the absence of a solution adequate to the circumstances and may be associated with the lack of prerequisites, methods, resources sufficient to achieve the necessary result, or with the impossibility of implementing the existing method of attainment of the necessary result.

Interest is a need, in relation to which an actor sets the goal and intends to implement it. In some cases, an interest may be equivalent to a strategic goal as its subject (desired end result). The need means the necessity or desire of an actor or system to achieve a status (range of statuses), providing the most favourable conditions for existence, functioning, and development.

National interests mean comprehended and legally defined socially significant, vital needs of a person, society, or state, in relation to which their subject matter – strategic goals – and intentions to achieve them are clearly formulated. 

Threat is a factor (a set of factors), the impact of which renders implementation of the needs of an actor completely or partially impossible. Effects of a threat include negative changes or absence of desired positive changes in the status of a person, society, state or in the attainment of their interests. 

Crisis is a status of society, a state, international institutions, bilateral or multilateral relations caused by internal and/or external circumstances, characterized by the lack or absence of methods and capabilities for de-escalation of contradictions and problem resolution. A crisis situation is a set of internal and/or external circumstances that contribute to the emergence and escalation of contradictions. 

Conflict is a form or status of relations between parties in presence of significant contradictions between them regarding interests, goals, and methods of their attainment that cannot be resolved without coercion by one of the parties or a third party. A conflict situation is characterized by the status of the conflicting parties, the degree of mutual influence, and environmental conditions (including the behaviour of third parties).

National idea is a concise description of commonly recognized long-term, vital social values ​​(basic needs), as the guidelines for the development of a person, society, and the state. The main functions of the national idea are to unite society, motivate, and lead of the activities of its actors. 

Prerequisites are a set of factors, previously obtained results, that can make the basis for the attainment of a specific goal. They are the productive part of a system and the environment in the initial status. Necessary conditions are prerequisites that, separately or in combination, in a certain clearly defined environment, have ever led (or theoretically can lead) to the desired result. Sufficient conditions are the minimal prerequisites under which the desired result is surely achieved in the given environment (as proven by theory or practice). 

Process is a sequence of events, measures, results that characterize transformation of an object, actor, system, environment from one status to another. 

Result is the status (range of statuses) in which an object, actor, system appears (may appear) as a result of performance of a task, attainment of a goal. 

Risk is the possibility of causing harm to an actor through intentional or unintentional actions of its own or of another actor. In appropriate contexts, risk may be understood as a sensation of a danger, premonition of a threat, as a measure of the probability or scale of the harm caused. 

Object (of a certain process) is an element (material or immaterial) influenced by an actor or a factor.

Environment is ​​a set of objects, subjects, processes nor belonging to a system (e.g., a state, society) or a process (e.g., state/society building or development), changes in each of which can cause or produce changes in the status of the system, process, or their components.

Security sector is an orderly set of actors, objects, processes, phenomena related to security. 

System is inseparable from its environment, but conditionally separated from it. 

System of national security is an organized set of all state and non-state entities (bodies, organizations, institutions) that are united by the goals and objectives of protecting national interests and act in accordance with the functions, powers, norms and rules determined in the law. Functionally, the notion of a system of protection against threats is synonymous. 

Situation is a set of conditions and circumstances within a certain range of statuses of an entity, system, process and their environment.

Method is a set of means for attainment of the goal, organized in a certain way. The components of the method include: methodology - a theoretical idea of ​​​​a set of methods for attainment of the desired result; technology - a set of interrelated and ready-to-use methods for attainment of the desired result by certain means; organizational and executive system - a set of bodies administering the process of implementation of a programme (plan) to obtain the desired results and entities performing programme (plan) tasks; resource provision - means, conditions (financial, material, technical, administrative, human, informational), which make practical implementation of the technology of attainment of the desired result possible. 

Actor is a person, organized group of persons, organization, socio-economic or another formation (e.g., a state), which in the given situation is seen as a single whole, bears rights and obligations and performs purposeful activities within their limits.

Social values (basic needs) mean certain features of society and/or its environment, the presence or absence of which is perceived by it as most important conditions for life and development. The set of values ​​(value principles) generally describes the desired status of society for a certain period, the essence, lines and limits of social activity. It is reflected in ideals, principles, norms. As a rule, material, political and spiritual values ​​are distinguished. 

Factor is any element of the real world, interaction of which with other elements causes changes in them. 

Function is the ability of an actor, object, system to act for the attainment of a set of homogeneous results (a result with a certain range of features). Objective means disposition to performing a function under certain internal and external conditions, describing specific features of the end result. 

Goal is a feature (set of features) that describes the desired result in the form of a desired status (set of statuses) of a subject, object, system, process. Strategic goals describe the end results, while tactical goals describe the intermediate results of the processes of the system functioning and development. 

Regulatory documents, their categorization

Doctrine is a document that sets out a systematized set of ideological (by areas of activity) principles, views, ideas, approaches to normal functioning (development) of a system. 

Concept is a document that describes the desired status of the state, society (in particular, national security and the system of its provision), the idea, prerequisites, limiting factors and main principles of the transition to this status.

Strategy is a document that describes the strategic goals of socio-economic development of society, the status, development and functioning of the system of national security, the main lines of their implementation, priorities, timeframes and requirements for implementation methods and resources. 

Programme is a document that describes an effective algorithm, a mechanism for coordinated implementation of the entire set of tasks by the organizational and executive system in terms of time, place and resources, the rules of transformation and acceptance of intermediate results, leading to the attainment of the end goals.

Plan is a program summed up in tabular form describing specific tasks, results and deadlines of their implementation, along with supervisors.

 

https://razumkov.org.ua/novyny/fakhova-dyskusiia-kontseptualni-zasady-sekiurytyzatsii