Securitization vs Desecuritization in Politics - Understanding the Key Differences and Implications

Last Updated Jun 21, 2025
Securitization vs Desecuritization in Politics - Understanding the Key Differences and Implications

Securitization transforms assets into marketable securities, enhancing liquidity and investment opportunities by pooling and distributing risks. Desecuritization reverses this process, breaking down securities back into individual assets to reduce complexity and increase transparency. Explore further to understand how these mechanisms impact financial markets and risk management.

Main Difference

Securitization involves transforming illiquid assets, such as mortgages or loans, into tradable securities, thereby improving liquidity and enabling risk distribution across investors. Desecuritization, on the other hand, is the process of reversing securitization by converting securities back into their underlying assets or cash flows, often to regain direct asset control or reduce market exposure. While securitization supports capital market efficiency and credit expansion, desecuritization aims to simplify asset structures and enhance transparency. The choice between securitization and desecuritization impacts balance sheet management, risk assessment, and regulatory compliance.

Connection

Securitization and desecuritization are interconnected processes that shape the dynamics of security discourse by framing and reframing issues as existential threats or normal politics. Securitization transforms political matters into urgent security concerns, prompting extraordinary measures, while desecuritization reverses this by restoring issues to regular political debate and institutional handling. This cyclical relationship influences policymaking, public perception, and the balance between emergency powers and democratic governance.

Comparison Table

Aspect Securitization Desecuritization
Definition The process by which political actors frame an issue as an existential threat requiring emergency measures beyond normal politics. The process of moving an issue out of emergency politics by normalizing it within regular political discourse and institutions.
Origin Rooted in the Copenhagen School of Security Studies, emphasizing the social construction of threats. Also from the Copenhagen School, focusing on reversing threat narratives and restoring normality.
Purpose To justify extraordinary political actions, often bypassing regular democratic procedures. To reduce fear and tension by treating the issue as manageable and non-threatening.
Political Implications Leads to increased executive power, possible restriction of civil liberties, and prioritization of security. Promotes democratic debate, legal processes, and reintegration of contested issues into standard policymaking.
Examples War on Terror framing, immigration portrayed as a national security threat. Peace negotiations, legalization of previously criminalized groups or issues.
Role of Audience Audience acceptance is crucial for legitimizing the securitizing move. Audience engagement supports normalization and acceptance of less politicized discourse.
Analytical Focus How actors construct threat narratives and mobilize emergency policies. How issues are de-escalated and integrated back into routine political practices.

Security Threat Construction

Security threat construction in politics involves the strategic framing of events, groups, or ideologies as significant risks to national or international stability. Governments and political actors use discourse, media, and policy tools to shape public perception, often emphasizing issues like terrorism, cyberattacks, or immigration to justify security measures. Social identity theory plays a role as political entities define 'in-groups' and 'out-groups' to legitimize threats and rally support. Empirical studies highlight how security threat narratives influence legislation, public opinion, and international relations dynamics.

Political Agenda Setting

Political agenda setting shapes public policy by highlighting specific issues for government attention, influencing decision-makers and media coverage. This process involves actors such as politicians, interest groups, and the media, who compete to prioritize topics based on public demand and strategic goals. Key theories include Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework, emphasizing problem recognition, policy proposals, and political will convergence. Empirical studies reveal media framing and public opinion as critical forces driving agenda shifts and policy outcomes worldwide.

Speech Act Theory

Speech Act Theory, developed by J.L. Austin and further expanded by John Searle, analyzes how political statements function as actions that influence public opinion and policy. Politicians use speech acts--such as promises, declarations, and commands--to assert authority, shape agendas, and negotiate power within institutions. Understanding illocutionary forces behind political discourse aids in revealing underlying intentions and potential manipulations in legislative debates and diplomatic communications. Empirical studies in political communication demonstrate the role of speech acts in constructing social realities and legitimizing governance.

Exceptional Measures

Exceptional measures refer to extraordinary legal or political actions taken by governments during crises such as wars, emergencies, or significant civil unrest. These measures often involve the temporary suspension of ordinary laws, increased executive powers, and restrictions on civil liberties to restore order and maintain national security. Historical examples include the declaration of martial law in countries like Turkey during coups or the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act after 9/11. The political implications of exceptional measures often raise debates on the balance between security and democratic freedoms.

Normalization Process

Normalization process in politics refers to the gradual establishment of stable and regular diplomatic, economic, or social relations between previously conflicting or estranged states or political entities. This process often involves the signing of treaties, establishment of embassies, and the reopening of trade channels to promote mutual cooperation and reduce tensions. Examples include the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba in 2014 and the Israel-UAE normalization under the Abraham Accords in 2020. Successful normalization can lead to increased regional stability, economic growth, and enhanced international collaboration.

Source and External Links

Securitization and Desecuritization by Ole Waever - Securitization is the process by which an issue is framed as an existential threat to a referent object (such as the state or society), requiring emergency measures and moves it out of the realm of ordinary politics, while desecuritization is the reverse process: returning that issue to normal political debate and management, thus reducing its exceptional status.

Securitization and desecuritization of russia in the national ... - Securitization examines how and why certain issues become constructed as security threats, often leading to exceptional measures, whereas desecuritization seeks to return such issues to "ordinary politics," either by managing the threat within the security domain or by transforming the issue so it is no longer defined in security terms.

On Security: Chapter 3 - Securitization involves elites labeling an issue as a security problem, shifting it onto the security agenda, while desecuritization involves efforts to remove the issue from the security agenda--either by keeping it off in the first place or by returning it to normal political processes after it was securitized.

FAQs

What is securitization in international relations?

Securitization in international relations is the process by which state or non-state actors frame an issue as an existential threat, enabling extraordinary measures to address it.

What triggers securitization of an issue or threat?

Securitization of an issue or threat is triggered by a securitizing actor framing it as an existential danger requiring emergency measures and justifying extraordinary responses beyond normal politics.

How does desecuritization differ from securitization?

Desecuritization transforms security issues into normal political matters by reducing perceived threats, whereas securitization frames issues as existential threats requiring emergency measures and exceptional responses.

What are the stages of the securitization process?

The stages of the securitization process are: asset identification and acquisition, pooling and structuring of assets, creation of special purpose vehicle (SPV), credit enhancement, issuance of asset-backed securities (ABS), and servicing and repayment to investors.

What role do political actors play in securitization and desecuritization?

Political actors initiate securitization by framing issues as existential threats requiring emergency measures and facilitate desecuritization by normalizing threats through policy reform and public discourse.

Why is desecuritization considered important for society?

Desecuritization is important for society because it promotes stability by resolving conflicts through dialogue rather than fear-driven security measures, reduces social polarization, and supports democratic governance by normalizing issues within political discourse.

How can an issue move from securitization back to a normal political agenda?

An issue moves from securitization back to a normal political agenda through desecuritization, which involves de-emphasizing the existential threat, reopening inclusive political debates, and transferring decision-making from emergency security measures to standard political processes.



About the author.

Disclaimer.
The information provided in this document is for general informational purposes only and is not guaranteed to be complete. While we strive to ensure the accuracy of the content, we cannot guarantee that the details mentioned are up-to-date or applicable to all scenarios. Topics about Securitization vs Desecuritization are subject to change from time to time.

Comments

No comment yet