Principles, perceptions and power

This article explores the ethical foundations of contemporary society and the impacts of unprecedented disruptive forces on the balance of power between the citizen and the state.

Both science and philosophy acknowledge the central role of human perception and reasoning in interpreting, understanding and sharing "reality". A positivist ontology views reality as objective, external, independent, predictable and knowable, while constructivist ontology views reality as subjective, internal, experienced, dynamic and perceived.

Innate power is the individual's inherent capacity for unilateral action, including resort to force (originally essential for survival in a brutal world). In freely choosing civic participation the individual relinquishes innate power (except in self-defence) and acquiesces to social rules. The social contract encapsulates the complex, evolving and sometimes conflicting nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state, and its ultimate purpose is to mediate a peaceful, orderly and humane society. The contract encompasses the citizen's duties (to comply with social norms) and rights (freedom and personal security), and the state's responsibilities (maintaining law and order) and powers (monopoly on the use of force).

The core values and ethical principles that have shaped the social contract and are the foundations for contemporary western society have their origins in ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotelean ethics locates primary moral agency in the free and reasoning individual, and defines the moral character of a "good man" living a virtuous and principled life. In contrast, deontological ethics defines the morality of actions by their compliance with social norms and duties, while teleological ethics (of which utilitarianism is an example) defines the morality of actions by their consequences (the greatest good).

The balance between the often competing elements of the social contract has shifted over the centuries, with major changes occurring after World War 2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserted the principles of equality, mutual respect, non-violence, freedom of speech and democracy as the foundations for a peaceful, just, harmonious and inclusive society. The subsequent Cold War ultimately demonstrated that a nation's security cannot be enforced or assured through secrecy and state repression, and the impetus towards democracy and the capacity of citizens to hold officials and elected representatives to account gathered pace. In Australia the operations of the various national security functions were bought under explicit principle-based civilian rules intended to maintain essential checks and balances and prevent the abuse of state power.

In the 21^st century the convergence and interaction of powerful and unprecedented forces may be transforming key aspects of the social contract in Australia. These disruptive forces appear to be changing the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state, incrementally shifting the balance of power away from the citizen towards the state and subtly compromising a range of vital but implicit social conventions intended to safeguard civil liberties.

These disruptive forces have been primarily enabled by technological advances that provide virtually universal access to communications and vast quantities of information. Global networks have demonstrably facilitated innovation, economic development, growth and trade, creating wealth by enabling private enterprise. In just over two decades global trade has transformed the lives of hundreds of millions of people previously living in poverty.

The same technologies have also provided an unprecedented opportunity and capability for the state, the media and enterprising individuals to influence and shape perceptions of reality, primarily through the use of intense visual and emotional imagery. Diverse forms of media stream an unremitting and overwhelming torrent of often superficial and undifferentiated information "noise" at the citizen. Constant projection of the complexity, intensity and dangers of contemporary life may ultimately challenge individual and social identity and undermine a sense of belonging and safety. In such an environment powerful but simplistic global brands can displace nuanced evidence-based discourse and real relationships.

Perhaps the most powerful of the disruptive forces in the 21^st century is the emergence of the spectre of terrorism post 9/11 and its rise as a global brand representing an enduring existential threat. The spectre of terrorismhas been uniquely effective in undermining liberal democracy by catalysing a utilitarian state response that has progressively suspended or supplanted a range of long-standing principle-based conventions and rules intended to balance civil liberties and national security.

Terrorism is fundamentally the use of barbarity to engender visceral fear in the community and coerce disruptive social change by catalysing a militaristic response from the state. Like all global brands, terrorism is an amorphous and pervasive phenomenon that partly relies on its diabolical nature for its capacity to engender fear. Terrorism is a form of psychological (not real) warfare, and its capacity to engender visceral fear in the absence of a real and imminent threat may represent a form of psychosis.

The initial characterisation of the international response to the 9/11 attacks as a "war on terror" seems largely intended to justify the post 9/11 deployment of mainly Western military forces against armed insurgents in Afghanistan in 2001. In fact deliberate indiscriminate attacks on civilians do not "fit" within a war paradigm as such violence is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, and extremists resorting to such violence are unable to gain recognition as lawful combatants. The description of one party to an armed conflict as terrorists may be intended to erode their legitimacy (as combatants) while reinforcing the apparently seamless connection between insurgents and the actions of extremists internationally.

21^st century terrorism is a remarkable phenomenon in that it is largely reliant for its reach and impact on co-opting the state and the media into publicly amplifying and perpetuating its message of fear and imminent threat (promoting propaganda that sustains the terrorism brand). Barbarity is ideally suited to the intimacy and immediacy of a 24-hour real-time media cycle, and its emergence coincides with the mainstream media's increasingly desperate commercial need to "cut through" a crescendo of competing information noise with shocking images that elicit a visceral community reaction. Nightly graphic images of strewn body parts and distraught fathers carrying their dead infants in their arms reinforce a constant sense of dread. A single extremist with a knife or a gun and internet access can galvanise the world, and the prospects of "lone wolf" murderers stalking any and every community may be the latest iteration of the terrorism brand.

There may be no clearer example of the public confusion that surrounds the spectre of terrorism than the persistent mystification of the 9/11 attacks. The key enabler of the 9/11 attacks (that turned passenger planes into guided missiles to strike several iconic buildings in the US) was the absence of hardened and secured aircraft cockpit doors, and the success of the 9/11 attacks was primarily due to relatively simple risk assessment and physical security failures.

Australia's policy responses to the rise of the spectre of terrorism as the pre-eminent threat to national security may have been shaped by a range of unique national circumstances. Firstly, the country may be particularly susceptible to fear-based perceptions because many of our core national values are implicit and largely reliant on volatile political processes to interpret and articulate an evolving national identity. Australia is unique amongst developed Western nations in its failure to institutionalise many of its core values, particularly those that relate to civil liberties.

Secondly, in the increasingly complex, volatile and uncertain environment created by globalisation the spectre of terrorism has been exploited for both political and commercial advantage. Terrorism engages deep-seated underlying anxieties about multiculturalism and the challenges posed by ongoing social and economic changes. Australian politicians compete to bravely protect the community from the threat posed by an evil death cult, while burgeoning and opaque defence and national security industries struggle to consume the largess to flow from the redirection of significant resources towards enhancing defence and national security.

Thirdly, the effective displacement of an objective and transparent national process for estimating and comparing (using the measures of probability and consequences) the relative risks posed to the nation's security by a broad range of hazards has allowed the spectre of terrorism to proliferate. Adopted in the late 20^th century, risk assessment enables the logical, evidence-based and proportionate allocation of scarce public resources to greatest effect to minimise the harm posed by all hazards through effective risk mitigation. In the absence of an all-hazards approach to managing threats to the nation's interests, anticipating and responding to the prospects of isolated attacks from armed youth has taken precedence over the prospects of the loss of hundreds of lives due to an inadequately-prepared-for natural disaster (flood or wildfire).

The war on terror has coincided with a dramatic (also technology-enabled) expansion of the state's capacity for mass surveillance. As revealed by Edward Snowden, in the digital age there is little that is not possible with sufficient resources. A combination of zealotry and obsolete statutory regulation has the potential to permanently transform the relationship between the individual and the state and render long-standing conceptions of privacy and civil liberties virtually obsolete. Australians may be particularly susceptible to such compromises in the absence of explicit statutory protections for civil liberties.

At a more general level a policy shift away from principle and rules-based approaches to national security towards utilitarianism (where the ends justify the means) has multiple potential (unintended) negative consequences. Encroaching and often unnecessary secrecy impedes both democratic accountability and essential oversight of government propriety and performance. The securitization of a range of previously civilian government functions (evolving from multiple services to a single force) has the potential to engender a mission-driven organisational culture in these functions.

A heightened level of vigilance amongst community police of a threat from so-called lone wolf attacks could lead to an increase in the unjustified use of lethal force in mental health and family violence confrontations. A growing community suspicion towards particular racial or religious sub-groups has the potential to exacerbate a sense of alienation and antagonism within these communities. And finally the intense coverage given to the isolated barbaric acts of extreme individuals may provide a powerful incentive for emulation amongst vulnerable alienated youth and others with mental health issues.