ABSTRACT National security is the podium of democracy and if democracy loses security imperatives, it has lost its core essence. Chai Anan, the Thai political scientist, in his analysis of the role of the state in promoting democracy opined that the most important role of the state is in reality to ensure security for itself and for the people. It therefore implies against sophisticated theoretical analysis obscured by the realists who conceived national security in power or military terms that in democratic rule, militarism cannot guarantee national security. A close look at Obasanjo regime 1999-2007, reveals that national security was conceived within a state-centric perspective. This perception is increasingly becoming more of an anachronism, along with growing internal opposition to the hegemonic statist perception of national security; hence, the need for a re-think. This paper contends that there is an organic relationship between democracy and national security and as such, national security cannot be conceived in military terms in a democratic rule. This paper is divided into 5 sections: 1 deals with introduction; 2 focus on conceptual clarification; 3 discuss the synergy between national security and democratic rule; 4 emphasize the imperative of rethinking national security problematic in a democratic rule; and the conclusion. The paper conclude that even though military strategy still remains a component of national security, the prospects for resolving the current national security crises thus lie in broadening the notion of security to include non-military considerations alongside more humane, equitable, and socially responsible practices by the state.
- National Security.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/ali_abubakar/1/