By Abu Jemimah Lami
Defence is often imagined in the language of weapons, battalions, and territorial protection. The dominant image is that of soldiers guarding borders, fighter jets patrolling skies, and advanced military hardware deterring external aggression. For centuries, this traditional understanding of security, centered on state sovereignty and military strength, shaped national defence policies across the world. Yet in the twenty-first century, the most pressing threats to people’s safety increasingly extend beyond the battlefield. As global risks evolve, it has become clear that true defence must go beyond guns. It must protect not only territory but also the lives, dignity, and well-being of people. This broader understanding is captured in the concept of human security.
Traditional defence systems were primarily designed to address external military threats. States invested heavily in armed forces to prevent invasion, deter rivals, and respond to insurgencies. While such measures remain relevant, they are no longer sufficient. Many of today’s most devastating threats are not conventional wars between states. Pandemics, climate change, economic instability, food insecurity, and internal violence demonstrate that a country can possess a powerful military and still fail to protect its citizens from widespread suffering. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that even militarily advanced nations were vulnerable to biological threats that overwhelmed health systems and disrupted economies. No number of tanks or missiles could substitute for robust public health infrastructure.
Traditional defence frameworks often prioritize external dangers while neglecting internal vulnerabilities. A state may focus on securing its borders yet overlook the insecurity experienced daily by citizens who lack access to food, healthcare, education, or employment. In many societies, individuals face greater risks from poverty, crime, environmental degradation, and poor governance than from foreign invasion. When defence is defined narrowly, these realities fall outside national security policy, even though they directly affect social stability and long-term peace.
A purely militarized approach can sometimes intensify insecurity. Heavy military spending may divert resources from social services that strengthen communities and prevent crises. Militarized responses to internal unrest can deepen grievances, fuel cycles of violence, and erode trust between governments and citizens. While armed force may be necessary in certain circumstances, it cannot address root causes of instability such as inequality, marginalization, or weak institutions.
The concept of human security emerged in the 1990s to address these shortcomings. It gained prominence through the 1994 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme, which reframed security around two core freedoms: freedom from fear and freedom from want. Instead of focusing exclusively on protecting states, human security centers on protecting individuals. It recognizes that people’s safety depends not only on protection from violence but also on access to basic needs, social inclusion, and political rights.
Human security encompasses multiple dimensions of well-being. Economic security ensures stable livelihoods and protection from extreme poverty. Food security guarantees reliable access to sufficient nutrition. Health security safeguards populations from disease and ensures accessible healthcare services. Environmental security addresses threats posed by climate change and resource depletion. Personal security protects individuals from violence and abuse. Community security preserves social cohesion and cultural identity, while political security ensures participation in governance without fear of repression. These interconnected dimensions reflect the complexity of modern insecurity.
Global threats illustrate why this broader approach is necessary. Climate change intensifies droughts, floods, and extreme weather, displacing populations and increasing competition over resources. Economic shocks ripple across borders through globalized markets, affecting livelihoods far from their origin. Cyber threats disrupt infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. Public health crises spread rapidly in an interconnected world. These challenges do not respect national boundaries and cannot be addressed solely through military force. They require coordinated policies across sectors such as health, education, environment, finance, and governance.
Focusing on human security also shifts the moral and political center of defence. When the state is treated as the sole object of protection, citizens’ lived experiences may be overshadowed by geopolitical concerns. Yet the legitimacy of any state ultimately depends on its ability to safeguard its people. A nation cannot be considered secure if large segments of its population live in chronic fear of hunger, violence, or repression. Human security insists that defence policies must prioritize the protection of human life and dignity.
Investing in human security strengthens societal resilience, which refers to the capacity of individuals and communities to withstand and recover from shocks. Strong public health systems can contain disease outbreaks before they escalate. Effective social safety nets can cushion families during economic downturns. Inclusive governance can reduce tensions that might otherwise lead to conflict. Sustainable environmental management can prevent resource scarcity from turning into violent competition. By building resilience, societies reduce the likelihood that crises will spiral into instability requiring military intervention.
The relationship between security and development further underscores the relevance of human security. Poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity often create conditions that fuel unrest and conflict. Conversely, conflict disrupts development by destroying infrastructure and undermining economic activity. Policies that promote equitable development, strengthen institutions, and protect human rights contribute directly to long-term peace and stability. In this sense, schools, hospitals, and fair legal systems are as essential to national defence as military installations.
Critics argue that human security is too broad, making it difficult to set priorities or measure success. Implementing comprehensive strategies also requires significant resources and coordination, which may challenge governments with limited capacity. Nonetheless, the breadth of the concept reflects the interconnected nature of modern threats. Narrow definitions of security may offer clarity, but they risk overlooking the factors that determine whether societies remain stable and peaceful.
Defence beyond guns does not mean abandoning military capabilities. Armed forces remain necessary for deterring aggression and responding to violent threats. However, they represent only one component of a wider security architecture. A balanced approach recognizes that investments in health, education, environmental protection, economic opportunity, and good governance are integral to national defence. When people have access to basic services, trust institutions, and feel included in political life, societies are less susceptible to conflict and extremism.
Ultimately, the question is not whether military defence matters, but whether it is enough. Contemporary realities suggest that it is not. Security must address the full spectrum of risks that threaten human life and dignity. By embracing human security, policymakers acknowledge that the safety of borders is inseparable from the well-being of people within them. True defence lies not only in the strength of weapons, but in the strength of societies and their commitment to justice and inclusion.
