<\/a><\/p>\nPositing the relationship that way gives a better picture of what we\u2019re trying to do. Ideally, as a liberal, democratic society, we\u2019re trying to find security measures that land in the top left quadrant\u2014the \u2018sweet spot\u2019\u2014where we enhance our security in ways that accommodate our civil liberties. The core of our national discussion should be about that quadrant because it lets us have both liberty and security. We don\u2019t trade them off against each other; we seek ways to achieve both simultaneously. Doing that isn\u2019t easy; it involves debate and hard work\u2014especially since security and transparency aren\u2019t always compatible objectives.<\/p>\n
A different problem begins once we reach proposed security measures that don\u2019t fit the sweet spot quadrant, because then those who we might call \u2018libertarians\u2019 and \u2018securitisers\u2019 head in different directions. The libertarians\u2014those who value liberty higher than security\u2014default into the top right quadrant and tolerate a higher level of risk. The securitisers\u2014those who value security higher than liberty\u2014default into the bottom left quadrant and tolerate a lower level of liberty for the gain of feeling more secure. I\u2019m uncertain who, if anyone, lives in the bottom right quadrant, though some might end up there temporarily and by accident.<\/p>\n
The strength of the libertarian default position depends on the level of risk. The higher the risk becomes\u2014say from a serious bird flu epidemic\u2014the harder it is to argue that civil liberties can remain unconstrained. Several countries in West Africa are facing those sorts of challenges today in relation to the Ebola outbreak. Conversely, the strength of the securitiser default position depends on the existence of a clear and present danger\u2014unless such a danger exists, democracies don\u2019t usually tolerate stricter controls.<\/p>\n
As a liberal, democratic society, Australia should be reluctant to trade away liberties for gains in security. Having a liberal society doesn\u2019t usually require us to be unsafe: much can be done in the sweet-spot quadrant, especially when threats are clear. The bottom left quadrant is the natural home of authoritarian governments and dictatorships, who are typically unconcerned about civil liberties. It should require extraordinary dangers for us to venture there.<\/p>\n
Still, extraordinary dangers do sometimes arise\u2014dangers that force us to devise and impose security measures outside the comfort zone of the sweet spot. When they arise, the usual reaction of governments is to move towards the securitiser default position, and not towards the libertarian default position. Few governments respond to new threats by becoming more libertarian. But for a liberal democratic government, time spent in the securitiser default quadrant becomes a factor in its own right. \u2018Emergency measures\u2019 are for emergencies, after all, not for normalcy. The measure of a liberal democracy is how quickly it can shape those new protective measures to allow it to return to the sweet-spot zone.<\/p>\n
I suspect all of my colleagues are actually having a discussion about three things: what we can and can\u2019t do in the sweet-spot quadrant; when we should and shouldn\u2019t contemplate alternative measures; and how we might qualify those measures to better protect our civil liberties. Seeing the security\u2013liberty issue as a two-axes problem and not a single-axis one helps us sharpen both questions and answers.<\/p>\n
Rod Lyon<\/a> is a fellow at ASPI and executive editor of\u00a0<\/em>The Strategist.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Originally published 9 September 2014. In recent weeks, three of my colleagues have written about the appropriate balance that we should attempt to strike between national security and civil liberties. Toby Feakin began the series …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Editors' picks for 2014 'Security and liberty: a schematic' | The Strategist<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n