Parliamentary Security Politics as Politicisation by Volume

Andrew W Neal
{"title":"Parliamentary Security Politics as Politicisation by Volume","authors":"Andrew W Neal","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V5I3.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The assumption that the policy area of security has depoliticising effects has diverted attention from the diverse ways in which parliamentarians are increasingly active on security. This development represents a shift away from the traditional executive-dominated security state and a challenge to security theories that assume security to be characterised by depoliticisation in the form of democratic marginalisation. The security literature assumes parliaments to be at worst irrelevant and at best a variable affecting the decisions of states, governments, and leaders. Analysing the work of UK parliamentary committees from the 1980s to the present, this article presents an original understanding of politicisation that subverts this view. This is politicisation by volume – increased amounts of parliamentary activity – in contrast to the more usually understood qualitative forms of politicisation such as increased polarisation, controversy or contestation (although the different forms of politicisation are not mutually exclusive). The article finds that parliamentary committee activity on security has increased from a base of almost nothing in the 1980s and before to regular and broad engagement in the present.","PeriodicalId":179359,"journal":{"name":"Special Issue: The Politicisation of Security: Controversy, Mobilisation, Arena Shifting","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Special Issue: The Politicisation of Security: Controversy, Mobilisation, Arena Shifting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V5I3.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The assumption that the policy area of security has depoliticising effects has diverted attention from the diverse ways in which parliamentarians are increasingly active on security. This development represents a shift away from the traditional executive-dominated security state and a challenge to security theories that assume security to be characterised by depoliticisation in the form of democratic marginalisation. The security literature assumes parliaments to be at worst irrelevant and at best a variable affecting the decisions of states, governments, and leaders. Analysing the work of UK parliamentary committees from the 1980s to the present, this article presents an original understanding of politicisation that subverts this view. This is politicisation by volume – increased amounts of parliamentary activity – in contrast to the more usually understood qualitative forms of politicisation such as increased polarisation, controversy or contestation (although the different forms of politicisation are not mutually exclusive). The article finds that parliamentary committee activity on security has increased from a base of almost nothing in the 1980s and before to regular and broad engagement in the present.
作为政治化的议会安全政治
认为安全政策领域具有非政治化作用的假设,转移了人们对议员在安全问题上日益活跃的各种方式的注意力。这一发展代表着对传统行政主导的安全国家的转变,以及对安全理论的挑战,这些安全理论假定安全以民主边缘化形式的非政治化为特征。安全文献认为议会在最坏的情况下是无关紧要的,在最好的情况下是一个影响国家、政府和领导人决策的变量。本文分析了英国议会委员会从20世纪80年代至今的工作,提出了一种颠覆这种观点的对政治化的原始理解。这是数量上的政治化-增加议会活动的数量-与通常理解的定性形式的政治化相比,如两极分化,争议或争论的增加(尽管不同形式的政治化并非相互排斥)。文章发现,议会委员会在安全方面的活动已经从20世纪80年代和之前几乎没有活动的基础增加到现在的定期和广泛的参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信