The widely accepted definition of human security1 comes from the United Nations

Development Programmes (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report wherein it

highlighted the core principles2 of the concept and its interconnected dimensions 3.

Despite the definition provided by UNDP this did not constrain scholars to formulate

varying postulations to the nature of human security. These debates revolve around the

theoretical lenses of neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism; broad versus narrow

debate; and on measuring human security. Political security4 will be exhaustively

discussed as it is the focus of the study. To add

Human security

Throughout history the protection of the state since the emergence of a

centralized and bureaucratic state to post World War II environment has been

underscored. States continue to pursue policies that ultimately protect its existence in the

international system. However A shift from a state-centric approach to a people-centric

approach was necessary as threats like interstate war and nuclear proliferations were

becoming less and less looming. Instead non-traditional threats such as disease, poverty,

1 Safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, along with protection from
sudden and hurtful disruption in the patterns of daily life (UNDP, 1994: 23).

2 The core principles of human security are universalism, people-centered, interdependence and
early prevention.

3 There are seven interconnected dimensions of human security these are economic security, food
security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and
political security.

4 UNDP defined political security as the prevention of government repression, systematic

violation of human rights and threats from militarization (UNDP, 1994:32).
natural disasters, violence and human rights abuses were at this time more significant to

address5. This emphasis was manifested by the release of the Human Development

Report in1996 that defined human security broadly as being safe from chronic threats

such as hunger, disease and repression along with the protection from sudden and hurtful

disruption in the patterns of daily life.

According to UNDP, human security espouses four core principles with seven

essential and interrelated dimensions namely: (1) economic, (2) health, (3) personal, (4)

political, (5) food, (6) environment, and (6) community. Discern whether to add the

discussion on the different dimensions here. This conceptualization of human security is

considered as the broad approach to the matter. It typically address threats that are non-

military in nature such as poverty, diseases, environmental degradation, human rights

violations, illiteracy rate, denial of political and civil liberties among others. According to

Feigenblatt (2009) it is for this shift to non-traditional threats that human security is

deemed as more concerned with human development and as the soft version of human

security. Feigenblatt further contend that there is a strong connection between security

and development wherein development promotes peace and that peace is necessary for

development to take place. Acharya (2007) agrees to point forwarded by Feigenblatt that

addressing freedom from want is somewhat of a prerequisite in addressing freedom

from fear issue. It is in this attention to the connection of security and development that

gave human security its conceptual grounding to that of human rights approaches, which

will be discussed in the proceeding section.

5 This text is from Liotta and Owens work entitled Why Human Security? in 2006.
 However critics of the broad approach of human security argued that it is too

expansive to offer policy utility. According to Krause (2007) the broad definition is a

mere shopping list of issues that are too wide ranged which does not link each other but

are still identified as threats to human security. Further according to Deudney and

Matthew (1999) it would trap policymakers and analysts if everything that causes a

reduction to an individuals wellbeing is labelled a human security threat. Liotta and

Owen (2009) argue that as one gets closer to the original concept of human security

formulated by UNDP it become more difficult to operationalize policies. Krause (2009)

added that there is nothing clearly gained by labelling issues such as right to education

and fair trade with human (in)security. It is for these reasons that they propose a narrow

definition of the concept in order to gain practical utility wherein they propose for a

protective human security which gravitates towards the importance of security in

protecting individuals from physical threats. In order to achieve this goal proponents

tightly focused on removing the use of force and violence in threatening the lives of

people every day.

Others have followed the essence of the UNDP definition but reconfigure it to

provide practical utility. One scholar is Jorge Nef (1999) he proposed a fivefold

classification of subsystems and regimes for the different dimensions of human security:

ecosystem, economy, polity, society and culture. These subsystems are linked by bridges

wherein resources link economy and environment; social forces link society and

economy; brokers and alliances link polity and society; and ideology links culture and

polity. He argues that the interplay between regimes and their respective linkages defines

the stable equilibrium at any given point in time and at any level. Three years after the
publication of Jorge Nef, King & Murray (2002) proposed a definition of human security

that caters to only four dimensions to gain better practical usage. These dimensions are

political, health, community, and economic. However this paper follows the definition

forwarded by UNDP as such it is necessary to discuss the different dimensions of human

security with an emphasis on political security.

Food security aims that all people at all times have both physical and economic

access to basic foods. Economic security aims for achieving basic income for all

individuals, achieved through productive and remunerative work or, from a publicly

financed safety net. Health security aims to guarantee a bare minimum protection from

diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. Personal security is the protection of people from

physical violence, coming from the state or states, from individuals or sub-state actors,

from domestic abuse, or predatory adults. Community security is the protection of people

from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic

violence. Environmental security aims to protect people from the short- and long-term

ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural

environment. Political security is concerned with protection of human rights and the well-

being of all people. It is comprised of the protection of people against state repression6.

The broad definition of human security consequently broadly defined what

constitutes political security. In order to fill the gap, King and Murray (2002) mentioned

that the human rights forwarded by UNDP refer mostly to civil and political rights.

6 The definitions presented are the same as to the definitions provided by the United Nations
Development Programme. This is done so as to capture the full essence of the different
dimensions.
Further King and Murray (2002) postulated the generalized poverty level for

democracy7. The concept of generalized poverty by King and Murray utilizes existing

data or threshold to qualify any deprivation to generalized poverty. They argue that their

definition of the generalized poverty level does not require ascertaining weight to

different domains of well-being to equalize the different domains. They also argue that

there is a qualitative difference between being above and below the threshold.

Accordingly, the work of Freedom House in quantifying civil and political rights and

freedoms by quantifying measures of civil liberty the freedom develop views,

institutions, and personal autonomy apart from the state has a significant step in

measuring political security.

However there are still obscurities raised by the generalized poverty level for

democracy. Werthes, Heaven, and Vollnhals (2011) seeks to clarify political security and

provided an alternative method to measure political security. They contend that political

security focuses on the protection of basic human rights and emphasizes that it is one of

the most important aspects of human security. In the formulation of an index to measure

political security they consider the five indicators8 concerning political security by

Cingranelli-Richard Human Security Rights Data Project and the Press Freedom Index.

In the Philippines the concept of human security (discuss the Philippine

experience in human security)

7 This refers to the situation wherein the level for democracy is below the
threshold or at a critical state.

8 The five indicators are: disappearance, extrajudicial killings, political

imprisonment, torture and assassination.