Perceived threats and the trade-off between security and human rights
| Author | Scott Radnitz |
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211020809 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Perceived threats and the trade-off between
security and human rights
Scott Radnitz
Henry M Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington
Abstract
It is well established that exposure to threats causes citizens to prioritize security considerations and accept restrictions
on civil liberties. Yet most studies on which these findings are based come from longstanding democracies and do not
distinguish among types of threat. This article argues that the effects of internal and external threats are conditional
on regime type. It tests the argument via an experiment embedded in an original survey of Georgia and Kazakhstan,
countries that vary in regime type but face similar levels of threat. In authoritarian Kazakhstan, there is no difference
in attitudes by threat type, whereas external threats produce greater support for security than internal ones in more
pluralistic Georgia. Contrary to previous research, security preferences are not mediated by the triggering of anxiety.
The findings contribute to literatures on the link between threats and authoritarian preferences, the rally-round-the-
flag effect, and the ways that political institutions mediate psychological processes.
Keywords
anxiety, authoritarianism, pluralism, post-soviet, security, threat perceptions
Security and democracy are closely intertwined and
sometimes at odds. Democracy requires toleration of
alternative points of view and a basic willingness to trust
strangers. People must feel assured that their lives will
not be put at risk if their group or party loses an election
and must be willing to countenance differing points of
view (Diamond, 1994). Yet the defense of the rights of
others is sometimes put to the test, and the desire for
security poses a constant and, at times, insurmountable
threat to democracy.
Studies have shown that the attitudes of people under
conditions of heightened insecurity differ from those in
normal times, in ways that threaten democracy. When
confronted with a threatening situation, people are more
likely to support aggressive policies that deal with the
source of threat, even at the expense of civil liberties
(Doty, Peterson & Winter, 1991; Hetherington &
Suhay, 2011; Maoz & McCauley, 2008). It is conven-
tional wisdom that authoritarian leaders and, to a lesser
extent, democratic politicians construct or exaggerate
threats in order to gain public support. By stoking fear
and purporting to protect the public against the source of
the threat, politicians can distract from societal
problems, deflect blame onto other actors, and rally the
citizenry behind their policies.
While the basic premise that insecurity has the poten-
tial to degrade democracy is widely accepted, research on
the conditions under which threats translate into support
for antidemocratic politics has been limited in two crit-
ical ways. First, threats are usually conceptualized as hav-
ing external origins, yet threats that emanate from within
the polity and are experienced on a personal, quotidian
level may have similar or more substantial effects on
attitudes toward security. Second, most work on insecur-
ity and democratic attitudes has been conducted in
democracies. Yet public opinion in non-democratic states
is not a monolith and is subject to the same biases and
heuristics as in democracies. Both variables – type of
threat and type of regime – may influence how people
assess the trade-off between security and liberty.
This article argues that both considerations matter, in
ways that nuance the conventional wisdom about the
conditions under which people willingly sacrifice civil
Corresponding author:
srad@uw.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2022, Vol. 59(3) 367–381
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00223433211020809
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial