Rethinking the Concept of Security of a State

In my paper, I will examine one of the essential concepts of the social contract theory, security of/from a state, from a conceptual historical perspective in the context of the Finnish state from the beginning of the 19th century. An autonomous state under the rule of Russian Empire, Grand Duchy of Finland, began forming its state apparatus and political language separately from that of the Russian administration, albeit from the foundations of Swedish legislation and structures of governance as well as political and administrative cultural influences from Sweden and protestant German states. Through German cameralist “Policey” tradition in practice as well as Hegelian philosophy in theory and influenced by nationalist tendencies lead by the Fennoman movement, a distinctively novel political language was invented, and completely new words were adopted to the Finnish vocabulary. Although not a neologism, the peculiarity of the Finnish concept of (state) security, "(valtiollinen) turvallisuus", lies in its relation to adjunct concepts of welfare, happiness and “success”/”prosperity”, which are predominantly state-driven and communal objectives. Stemming from the philosophy of J.V. Snellman (1806-1881), a Hegelian Fennoman, the “state” acts “in itself for itself”. Simply put, conceptually the state does not distance itself from its subjects, and hence the actions of the state are the actions of its people. When put into the context of state security, the subjects defending themselves from the state or vice versa, would, in theory, constitute an absurd claim. However, it is not only this view of negative function of security that is to be considered, but also the positive aims of securing the people not only from threats but to form decent conditions of living and political activity by means of education (Finn. “sivistys”, Germ. “Bildung”), healthcare, social support and culture, that is, the welfare and “success” of the state/people. To put this into perspective, and to summarize the argument of the paper. Today, the Finnish state is widely regarded as a (liberal) democracy. However, historically the conceptions of a “state” and “security” differed from that of the liberal understanding of the state as an abstract “other” as well as in its main functions and obligations to the people. If so, in the Finnish context putting “liberal” into (liberal) democracy can and should be questioned to begin with when disentangling the complex political challenges of current times.