Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC) are increasingly seen as a legitimate actor in the security field, both in the political debates and in the academic literature. The growth of this industry has been stereotypically interpreted as the triumph of neoliberal ideas, which identify private actors as being more effective, and cost efficient than state actors. In a nutshell, the proliferation of PMSC’s is seen as a one-dimensional move from state to markets. How PMSC's are actually understood by the actors involved in the policymaking process, however, is understudied at best. Using an actor-based discourse analytical approach, this article follows the political and technical debate, in parliamentary hearings, over the use of PMSC's as a response to piracy at sea. The paper traces several categories of legitimation used by politicians, experts –included military- and those private actors to be secured, as they argue in favor or against the use of PMSCs. The study proposes that the contestation is far more complex than the market state dichotomy, and that a particular discourse for privatization could be legitimizing PMSC as a security actor while defining it as a sub-optimal solution. This discourse challenges the positive self image of the private security industry, and might be setting stricter limits to its future expansion.
