The governance of security : public good and private business : state-citizen relations in the contemporary security context in Kingston, Jamaica

(1)

The Governance of Security:

Public Good and Private Business

State-citizen relations in the contemporary security context

in Kingston, Jamaica

Yke J. Ntoane

(2)

(3)

The Governance of Security: Public Good and Private Business

State-citizen relations in the contemporary security context in Kingston, Jamaica

Thesis for the research master

International Development Studies,

University of Amsterdam

Student: Yke J. Ntoane (5966493)

Supervisor: Dr. R.K. Jaffe

Second supervisor: Dr. T.G. Diphoorn

November 2015

(4)

(5)

Abbreviations

CA&NW Citizen Association and Neighbourhood Watch CA Citizen Association CCTV Closed Circuit Television CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COMET Community Empowerment and Transformation Project CSJP Citizen Security and Justice Program DFID Department for International Development EDF European Development Fund IDB International Development Bank JCF Jamaica Constabulary Force JDF Jamaica Defence Force JFJ Jamaicans for Justice JLP Jamaica Labour Party MP Member of parliament NWA Neighbourhood Watch Association PMC Private Military Company PMI Peace Management Initiative PSC Private Security Company PSOJ Private Sector Organization of Jamaica SDC Social Development Commission USAID United States Agency for International Development VPA Violence Prevention Alliance

(9)

Tables and figures

1: Map of Jamaica 2: Demographic characteristics survey respondents 3: Violent crimes per year 2009-2014 4: Armed private security guards 5: The Patrick Gardens Community Centre and a sign of the Patrick Garden Neighbourhood Watch on Patrick Drive 6: Campaign add for the Stay Alert App 7: Review of community safety 8: Security responsibilities 9: Security measures in Patrick City 10: Empty lots with overgrown vegetation

(10)

Figure 1: Map of Jamaica1 Source: Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva 1_{Black circle indicates the location of Patrick City}

(11)

Summary

The privatization of security is a global phenomenon. In Kingston, Jamaica, levels of violence and crime are very high and shifts in the governance of security have led to an ever-growing commercial and voluntary private security sector. Research on security governance rarely focuses on how the privatization of security and the growing private security industry impacts the relationship between the state and citizen, that is how it reconfigures citizenship. This thesis intervenes in current debates on security governance and citizenship, first by providing insight into the complex relationship between the state and citizens emerging in a Caribbean city in the context of security privatization. Second, where research on security in the Global South has mainly focused on either elites and gated communities or on state strategies and citizenship in low-income communities this research aims to disentangle emerging state-citizen relations in the security governance context in a lower middle-income community. The main question in this research is: ‘What citizenship agendas and practices emerge in the contemporary security context in Jamaica?’

The research consists of interviews with security and policy experts, in-depth interviews with residents, observations, surveys and an analysis of national security policies and newspaper reports. The results show a large disparity between the government’s citizenship security agendas and everyday citizenship practices. Social norms and values, classed narratives and levels of distrust characterize state-citizen relations. Whereas the state makes claims on citizens to take collective and individual responsibility and undertake participatory community action, residents seem to withdraw from these public security responsibilities. Instead, citizen’s security practices are primarily aimed at creating a safer life for themselves and their household.

The study contributes to a larger theoretical debate on the role of the state and citizenship in the context of broader shifts in contemporary security governance. The analysis of citizenship agendas and practices in Kingston enables us to understand both state and citizen reactions in the security context of high levels of insecurity and highlights the importance to include lower middle-income communities in future security strategies. Including this group in the analysis of security and citizenship is important because even though this group falls within the state’s normative perception of the ‘good citizen’ this group often seems to overlooked and neglected, while experiencing levels of fear of crime and victimization and are in need of security.

(12)

(13)

Acknowledgements

This thesis is marking the end of my time as a student at the University of Amsterdam. A period in which I further developed my interest in international politics and development, and discovered my passion for doing research. In this research master programme I had the opportunity to go abroad for my fieldwork, which turned out to be one of the most meaningful experiences I ever had. In the early stages of my research our shared interest on the topics of security and citizenship brought my supervisor, Rivke Jaffe, and me together. She introduced me to one of the most beautiful and interesting countries in the world: Jamaica, where I lived and studied for a period of 4,5 months. For your supervision and guidance through this whole process I want to specially thank you, Rivke. I also want to thank Tessa Diphoorn for critically looking at my work and to be my second supervisor. I would like to continue to express my appreciation to Anthony Harriott, Kevon Rhiney and Robert Kinlocke for welcoming me at the University of the West Indies and helping me in my exploration of the city and the research topic. In Kingston I also want to say a special thank you to Tashanna, for being my research buddy and a good friend. I think I can speak on behalf of the both of us that we are very grateful for the warm welcome by the members of the research community. A special thanks to all community members who shared their stories with me.

Finally I could not have written this thesis without the support of my dear friends and family. Alana, thank you for our time together in Kingston, it was great to share this adventure with you. Ilse and Ralph, thank you for the good company while writing. Without you I would have never survived all those hours in the library. And thank you Irene for being such a great friend. Finally I want to thank my dear mum, Sekano and Winnie for their endless support. And a big thanks to Maarten, for your never-ending confidence. I wish you all the greatest of pleasure while reading this thesis. Yke Ntoane Amsterdam, November 2015

(14)

(15)

1. Introduction

The past few decades have shown radical changes in the security landscape of many urban areas around the world. From the streets of Durban to neighbourhoods in London extensive security measures are more and more noticeable, and different actors are involved in the provision of security. These security actors often operate separately and independently from traditional state security actors such as the police and military forces. The non-state security industry is booming and is becoming part of the everyday lives of many. There are security guards at shops and office buildings; CCTV cameras on the streets registering every movement and private mercenaries are involved in the protection of cities in conflict areas. Furthermore, citizens organize their own protection by taking residential security such as electronic security and armed response, and joining neighbourhood watch groups. In different sectors of life all around the world security privatization is a daily reality. The involvement of non-state actors in the provision of security raises questions about the accountability and legitimacy of the state, as it puts tension on the assumption that the state has the primary responsibility for citizen security and has the exclusive power to use force for the protection of the people. These changes in the governance of security cause a shift in our understanding of the relationship between citizens and the state.

Processes of security privatization also occur on a large scale in Jamaica and its capital city Kingston, a city that is plagued by high levels of violence and crime and has been rated as one of the murder capitals of the world. Jamaica’s public security actors seemingly are incapable of providing security for its citizens resulting in growing numbers of non-state security providers. In 2008 Amnesty International published a report on the security situation in Jamaica in which they concluded that the Caribbean island is in a public security crisis as the state is failing to effectively provide security to its people (Amnesty International 2008). In Jamaica citizens are compelled to rely on alternative, non-state security initiatives to ensure safety for themselves and their living environment, and fill up the ‘security gap’ that is left open by public security structures. Therefore nowadays multiple commercial and voluntary non-state security actors are involved in the provision of security for businesses and households throughout the city, giving rise to multiple questions: Does the presence of non-state security impact the role of the state in society? Does the pluralisation of security change how citizens understand and enact security in Kingston? And does the involvement of non-state security actors reconfigure citizenship and affect state-citizen relations? Little is known about how the privatization of security reconfigures citizenship and

(16)

whether it changes the relationship between the state and its citizens. This research attempts to unravel state-citizen relations in the contemporary security context in Jamaica. It does so by focusing on state framings of citizenship and citizenship practices in a lower-middle income community. By disentangling complex security governance structures this analysis provides us with insights on the effects of the rise of non-state security, on how the Jamaican government governs security and how citizens experience their roles and responsibilities in these complex security structures. The study aims to present the reader with new perspectives on the non-state security sector and the societal changes it brings about, enabling us to understand the effects of security privatization within a global framework.

The research for this thesis was conducted between August 2014 and December 2014 in a lower middle-income community in Kingston. Its methods included interviews with key-experts and policymakers and surveys, observations and in-depth interviews with community members, as well as of a qualitative content analysis of two major newspapers in Jamaica.

1.1 Aims of this study

By studying state-citizen relations in the contemporary security context in Jamaica, this research strives to contribute to current debates on security governance and citizenship. I aim to do so in this thesis by studying security through the analytical lens of citizenship. This is done by disentangling citizenship agendas en citizenship practices. Citizenship agendas comprise all governing techniques implemented by the state to facilitate the ‘normative framings of citizenship’ (de Koning et al. 2015: 121). On the contrary citizenship practices contain all actions undertaken by citizens to negotiate rights, obligations and responsibilities in society. Comparing emerging citizenship agendas and practices in a security governance context enables us to understand the reconfiguration of citizenship.

Furthermore, this research attempts to incorporate both formal and informal non-state security in the analysis of security governance. Where most scholars focus on the development of either the commercial private security industry or formal and informal non-state security this research studies both. By doing so I aim to show the reader that not only the line between state and non-state but also between formal and informal security provisions is difficult to define and that a solid distinction is difficult to be made. Finally this research aims to enhance academic knowledge on security experiences in middle-class communities. The choice of location was made based upon the fact that there is a lack of knowledge on citizenship and security (lower) middle-income communities.

(17)

Research on non-state security often focuses on gated and elite communities and the withdrawal of these communities from society by building high gates and walls, and the extensive presence of commercial private security (Caldeira 1996, 2000; Borsdorf & Hidalgo 2008; Coy 2006). Research on security in the Global South focuses on state security strategies in low income, volatile communities and non-state security provisions in these areas (Jaffe 2012, 2013; Goldstein 2004, 2012). Focusing on the everyday security situation in a (lower) middle-income neighbourhood will shed new light on the governance of security in the daily lives of a sometimes forgotten and overlooked group in society. The empirical study of citizenship security practices will enlarge our knowledge on how rights and responsibilities are shared and negotiated. In addition analyzing citizenship will expose patterns of inclusion and exclusion.

I wish to achieve these aims, and address the previously described developments by answering the following research question: ‘What citizenship agendas and practices emerge in the contemporary security context in Jamaica?

1.2 Thesis overview

The first part of this thesis will discuss the most prominent concepts in this research: security governance and citizenship. By providing an overview of past and current research on these topics the reader will gain understanding of my interpretation of these theoretical concepts, and their application throughout the analysis. The following chapter discusses the methodological steps undertaken during the research process, both in the field and while analyzing the results, and reflects on the methodological challenges and dilemmas I faced in the research process. The second part of this thesis examines the case study in the lower middle-income community in Kingston where the research was conducted. A contextual chapter discusses the governance of security and security trends in Jamaica and its capital city Kingston. The empirical findings of my research will be presented in two chapters: one on citizenship agendas formulated by state, and one on citizenship security practices in the studied community. The analyses in these two chapters come together in the conclusion, which presents the main research results. The conclusion also includes a more in-depth discussion of the theoretical contribution and policy recommendations following this research.

(18)

2. Security governance and citizenship

There is a growing body of literature focusing on two important global trends in the field of security. Firstly, from the 1980s onwards a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ was recognized which has changed our understanding of how rules and norms are being governed and reproduced in society. Secondly, scholars are currently focusing on the growing number of non-state security actors involved in the governance of security in urban spaces (Abrahamsen & Williams 2011; Schneckener 2006; Dupont et al. 2003). This chapter aims at providing the reader with an understanding of these two research trends by focusing on the relevance of the study of governance for inclusive and sustainable development in the context of security. Furthermore, this chapter seeks to gain insights into the relationship between the governance of security and citizenship, as the changing role of the state impacts state-citizen relations. In this chapter I will elaborate on the conceptual approaches employed in this research, in this I strive to define relationships between the various concepts.

It is the chapter’s aim to provide the reader with an understanding of the relation between the concepts used in this research. A first section in this theoretical framework positions security in a framework of governance after which I examine the emergence of security privatization and manifestations of non-state security. It attempts to provide insights into a specific group of non-state security actors, namely voluntary based non-state security actors such as Citizen Associations (CA) and Neighbourhood Watch Associations (NWA). Secondly this chapter examines to what extent security governance structures impacts how different communities in society enact and experience citizenship. The final section of this chapter elaborates on the conceptualization of citizenship, which in this research primarily refers to the behaviours and processes through which public rights and obligations (Janoski 1995: 3) are negotiated. Through the study of agendas and practices in the context of security we can disentangle citizenship, exposing the complex relationship between the state and citizens.

2.1 Governance and security

The expansive growth of the private security industry has resulted in a growing body of research on non-state security structures, the role of plural security in society and the complex, hybrid relationship between public and private security actors. A first subsection discusses the emergence of the governance framework and includes security into the analysis of governance structures. Secondly I will discuss current trends in the privatization

(19)

of security. By connecting citizenship and security governance in the final section I look at the implications of changing security governance structures for the distribution of rights, responsibilities and obligations in society.

2.1.1 Positioning security governance

The concept of governance has been a much-studied topic since the early 1980s by scholars of urban and international development studies. In this time a shift was observed from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. In this shift scholars did not notice a change in the political outcomes per se but they observed transformation in the patterns and processes of decision-making. In a traditional sense government can be understood as ‘the formal and institutional process, which operate at the level of the nation state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action’ (Stoker 1998: 17). With the emergence of governance these processes and patterns were observed beyond government. Governance implies the blurring of ‘boundaries between the public and the private’ (Stoker 1998: 17) in continuing processes of cooperation. Governance encompasses the involvement of multiple actors on multiple levels. Understanding and improving urban developmental issues necessitates an understanding of governance. This also applies to the topic of security where scholars observed changes in the security environment and noticed the rise of non-state actors in the security field. With the advent of changing security governance structures and the arrival of new security actors traditional perceptions on security and the way security was analyzed changed.

Much literature on the governance of security focuses on international and regional security governance (Webber et al 2004; Kirchner & Dominguez 2014; Krahmann 2003). Security governance involves ‘the coordinated management and regulation of issues by multiple and separate authorities, the interventions of both public and private actors […], and formal and informal arrangements (Webber 2004: 4). Pierre (2001 in Webber 2004) explains that governance is concerned with understanding how the regulation of societies has been supplemented by the roles of political actors other than the government. The involvement of multiple actors in decision-making processes is what distinguishes government from governance. Multiple studies on security governance focus on decision-making processes, policy implementations and policy outcomes. Studying security governance in this research does not solely entail looking at policy outcomes but also at processes and structures of security in society. Governance in this research is ‘a lens that can help us understand how security is produced’ (Webber 2004). Through this lens I will approach the governance of security in Kingston, Jamaica.

(20)

When looking at security privatization on a global scale we observe that in many contexts a growing number of non-state actors are involved in both day-to-day security provisions and mercenary activities. Research shows that in many countries around the world private security guards outnumber police officers (Abrahamsen & Williams 2011). Formal and informal non-state security actors are taking over state functions (Baker 2008) and appropriate state security responsibilities. This complex junction of public and private security actors is positioned and named differently in academic literature. Abrahamsen and Williams (2011) describe current security structures as ‘security assemblages’, describing the transformations in the security sector as ‘new security structures and practices that are simultaneously public and private, global and local’ (Abrahamsen & Williams 2011: 3). Others refer to processes of security privatization as ‘pluralization’, ‘fragmentation’ and ‘diversification’ (Loader 2000; Jones & Newburn 2006; Krahmann 2003). The relationship between state and non-state security actors can be described as multidimensional (Diphoorn 2013: 20) and scholars observe a ‘shift from police to policing’ (Loader 2000: 323) where the state is no longer the sole provider of security and accountability is shared in networks that operate on different levels, even across space and time (Dupont 2004). Studying recent trends in security privatization raises the question whether it is actually an emerging phenomenon and a current trend. Formal and informal private security arrangements have always been in place in many contexts and can be ‘highly effective, operating with local knowledge and more importantly legitimacy’ (Baker 2008: 2). Nevertheless the rapid growth and the increasing scope of the private security sector in countries such as Jamaica stresses the urgency for a better understanding of the role and the outcome of changes in the governance of security in society.

When examining private security I refer to a concept that is less abstract than other concepts in this research, but the concept contains multiple dimensions and is very contextual. Scholars writing on the theme of private security theme mainly focus on four types of non-state security: warlords and vigilante groups, private military companies (PMCs), commercial private security companies (PSCs) and voluntary-based private security initiatives. The first set of writings on private security concentrates on the role of warlords and vigilantes or gangs. The term warlord is used to describe somebody ‘who is overlord of a particular group or geographical area’ (Hills 1997: 36) and use ‘armed civilian followers to impose their policies and ambitions’ (Hills 1997: 36). Warlords and gangs are studied in many different contexts such as in different countries and regions in Latin America (Goldstein 2004, 2012; Koonings & Kruit 2004) and Africa (Musah 2002; Jackson 2003; Hills

(21)

1997). A second focus in the study of security privatization is on private contractors in conflict regions The services of these private military companies (PMC’s) are ‘directly or indirectly linked to warfare’ (Kruck 2014: 113). PMC’s are often employed to supplement national police and military. A third group of security actors discussed in academic literature are private security companies. The biggest distinction between commercial private security companies (PSCs) and PMCs is the more defensive character of PSC whereas PMCs also offer offensive services (Holmqvist 2005: 5). PSCs thus have a unilateral focus on the prevention of (criminal) incidents and the ‘protection of life and assets’ (Abrahamsen & Williams 2011: 39). PSC’s are given the right ‘to control access to, use of, and conduct on’ (Shearing & Stenning 1998: 497) private properties. Without being the official law enforcers commercial private security actors enjoy a large degree of ‘legal authority’ (Shearing & Stenning 1998: 497).

A fourth group studied in the literature is voluntary based private security, or ‘non-paid forms of community-initiated crime prevention’ (Kempa et al. 1999: 207), which comprises all different forms of security related initiatives undertaken by private citizens and communities to improve levels of security. This group of actors includes community action such as public and community policing activities, and neighbourhood watch associations (NWA). Both formal and informal community-based security initiatives often exist in partnership with the state or are state led. Citizen engagement in this context is often deployed as a formal tool that aims to contribute to crime prevention and increase citizen security (Arias & Ungar 2009). But also informally citizens unite to counteract issues of insecurity in their communities, cities or countries. A difficult issue when it comes to voluntary based security is that it closely related to acts of vigilantism when citizens take ‘law into one’s own hands’ (Goldstein 2003: 25) and get involved in ‘illegal’ security practices. Still the inclusion of community activities into the analysis of non-state, private security actors is key to the analysis as in many contexts an appeal is made upon these voluntary actors, by both citizens and the state, to be involved in security activities. Studies on initiatives such as private policing and neighbourhood watches have been studied extensively in different contexts and countries such as the United States and Great Britain from the 1980s (Bennett 1989; Hope 1995; Rosenbaum 1987). But also in South Africa (Baker 2008, 2004) and throughout Latin America (Goldstein 2003; Ungar 2007)

research focuses on the role of the community in crime prevention. Different concepts are used to refer to voluntary based security structures such as ‘private policing’ (Sharp & Wilson 2001; Johnston 1992; Kempa et al. 1999) and ‘public policing’ (Jones & Newburn

(22)

1989). These types are different from ‘community policing’ as this is often a state-led security strategy whereas private and public policing are really ‘civil policing initiatives’ (Kempa et al. 1999: 199).

A major focus in many of the studies on these non-state initiatives is the added value and the effectiveness of community involvement on the safety of the community (Bennett et al. 2009). Research on the topic often concludes that community initiatives ‘encourage a form of defensive exclusivity’ as they are ‘premised upon the exclusion of strangers or undesirable outsiders’ (Crawford 1989: 245). This study strives to position the role and practices of voluntary community initiatives in the framework of security governance and study the effect of its presence as a non-state security provider on state-citizen relations.

2.1.2 Security governance and citizenship

The emergence of these different groups of private actors is changing the security landscape on multiple levels, not only within the state but also between and outside of state spaces (Kempa et al. 1999: 213). Due to the junction of non-state security actors the state is no longer the single institution to exercise control over a bounded territory (Loader 2000), which raises questions of legitimacy. The commonly accepted Weberian model of the state gives nation-states the ‘monopoly on the sanction, control and use of force’ (Holmqvist 2005: 45). The intervention of non-state security actors as discussed above challenges this assumption contesting the ‘roles of the nation state as the main protagonist […] and as the guarantor of physical security for its citizens’ (Holmqvist 2005: 1). The use of force by the state is legitimized, as it is a condition for security oversight and ‘to prevent violence from citizens’ (Krahman 2009: i). In return for security citizens give up their right to employ force (Krahman 2009) and hand over the right to use violence and which challenges traditional state-citizen relations. With the advent of non-state security actors this norm is changing, as citizens have the ability to turn to security providers other than the state challenging this division of security roles between citizens and the state.

These developments have raised much discussion on the complex relationship between state and non-state actors, and citizens. According to Clarke (2004) neoliberal developments are challenging conceptions of the public interest, striving to replace the public interest by the rule of private interests. Others suggest that non-state actors are not always responsible for the eroding power of the state and argue that changing governance structures are also due to changes inside the state (Abrahamsen and Williams 2010). In her analysis Holmqvist argues that in the case of security there sometimes is ‘little to privatize’

(23)

(Holmqvist 2007: 2), referring to the malfunctioning of the public security services such as the police and the army in many countries. Hence within the context of security scholars observe a change in the relation between state actors, non-state actors and citizens and there is growing body of literature on this topic (Abrahamsen and Williams 2011; Holmqvist 2007; Jaffe & Grassiani 2014). One of the findings is that the security sector nowadays is increasingly approached from a market-oriented point of view and as a result of this, citizens have to ‘accept substantial responsibility for their own safety and security’ (Abrahamsen and Williams 2010: 67). Citizens thus have to do business as they would do with any other private and commercial service. Besides greater responsibilities for citizens, Abrahamsen and Williams also note that those who keep on relying on their social environment and the state for their security provision will face higher levels of risk and potential victimization than those who can afford to hire private security (Abrahamsen & Williams 2010: 68). The changing security landscape thus has major consequences for those not willing or able to deploy non-state security measures. Citizens who do make use of non-state security initiatives are often highly affected by insecurities, or at least have the impression that they are potential victims. Others make use of non-state security because of their distrust in the rule of law and a fear that the state is too ‘weak’ and won’t be able to protect them (Dupont et al. 2003). For example because of high levels of corruption (Jaffe & Grassiani 2014: 53) within the government, and police and defence forces. The lack of trust in the state’s capabilities to protect citizens thus encourages the deployment of both commercial and voluntary non-state security. We could say that non-state security initiatives in some way fill up the space left open by the state. In her research in Sao Paolo, Caldeira (2000) observed the changes in the character of public space because of the privately controlled access to security. According to her private security creates ‘a space that contradicts the ideals of openness, heterogeneity, accessibility and equality that helped to shape modern public spaces and modern democracies’ (Caldeira 2000: 4). In this line of thinking, non-state security activate stimulates the development of exclusionary mechanisms in society. The rise of non-state security challenges the established rationale that the state has a monopoly on violence and should be the sole provider of safety and security for its citizens. Furthermore, it also changes the environment in which citizens can negotiate their rights and responsibilities. The rise of non-state security alters traditional views on citizenship and security by questioning the state’s of legitimacy and accountability (Holmqvist 2005: 5).

(24)

Previous studies on security governance and citizenship in the Global South have mainly focused on elites and gated communities (Caldeira 1996; Gnad 2002). These analyses focus on the withdrawal of the upper class in gated communities, which increases urban inequalities and social divisions. Other research on the governance of security focuses on state security strategies in low-income and volatile communities (Jensen 2010; McIlwane & Moser 2001). In this research security governance structures will be studied in a lower middle-income community. The middle class is group that can be described as ‘neither wealthy or poor, but that forms the backbone of both the market economy and of democracy’ (Birdsall et al. 2000: 1) in many societies. The middle-class is an important group that is currently left out of most of the scientific studies on public- and private security structures. Most scholars define the middle-class as those citizens that have 2US$ and 10 US$ to spend on a daily basis (Brandi & Büge 2014) but this range differs per research. Lower middle-income communities are distinguished from the middle class because this group of people ‘do not suffer the hardships of extreme poverty’ (Brandi & Büge 2014: 5) but are certainly not firmly established as middle-income citizens. They have a job, are able to buy certain luxury products and can send their children to school but any ‘form of economic shock can easily throw them back into poverty’ (Brandi & Büge 2014: 5). This group is less capable of adapting to changing economic conditions and experience lower social mobility than citizens that are more established middle class citizens. Including communities that represent the bottom layer of the middle-class will not only enlarge our understanding of security governance in this section of society. It will also contribute to our understanding of how middle-income communities perceive their role and the state’s role and the responsibilities in the complex public-private security landscape.

2.2 Citizenship as state-citizen relations

Central in the analysis of citizenship in this thesis are state-citizen relations. The previous sections showed how changing security governance structures have an impact on the relationship between citizens and the state. In order to gain more understanding on the use of citizenship in this research this section present the conceptualization of citizenship. In this I make a distinction between citizenship security agendas, formulated by the government and citizenship security practices, exercised by the people. Studying citizenship in this way enables us to expose state-citizen relations in the context of contemporary security governance. This section demonstrates that this relationship is characterized by a dual responsibility where both actors have obligations towards each other, and are in constant negotiation over the distribution of these responsibilities and rights. How this mutual

(25)

relation is manifested is one of the main foci in this research.

Citizenship nowadays is no longer restricted to a nation or a political domain but operates across multiple governmental domains (Shearing and Wood 2003: 406). Van Deth (2007) argues that citizenship can be analyzed from both an individual and a societal level (414). Citizenship can manifest on different levels and can alter per level of analysis. Citizenship comprises multiple dimensions but most scholars include community membership, the allocations of rights (Gaventa 2000), and ‘rights and duties relating to an individual’s membership in a political community’ (Marston & Mitchell 2004: 93) in their definitions. State-citizen relations are central as citizens are in constant negotiation about their role and place in society and how they relate to each other. On the other hand, it is the state that has to find common ground and get support for its laws and regulations, and maintain a good relation with citizens. According to David Held (1991) these state-citizen relations historically could be depicted in a scheme where the state is accountable to citizen-voters and has to generate sufficient policy-outcomes (Held 1991: 412). Over time, Held argues there are growing responsibilities for these citizen-voters and a greater scope has developed for markets (Held 1991: 413). These changing citizenship dimensions are important when looking at the governance of security, where multiple actors are given space to participate in security provision structures. The relationship between the state and citizens is peaceful when both parties agree on how public authority is being exercised and people trust state institutions.

Different notions on citizenship originate from three different strands of thinking about citizenship: liberal, communitarian and civic republic approaches. Each approach has different views on the roles and obligations of the state and citizens in this complex relationship. Van Deth’s approach to citizenship is linked to liberal thinking on citizenship where citizenship is seen ‘as a status of the individual’ (Lazar 2012: 340). Van Deth also agrees that citizenship concerns the ‘relationship between an individual and a state’ (Van Deth 2007: 403), where the individual has a minimal amount of duties and rights and the state only provides essential goods such as protection.

Communitarian thinkers on citizenship dismiss the individualist approach of liberal theorists and argue that ‘all individuals imagine themselves only in relation to the larger community’ (Isin & Wood 1999 in Jones & Gaventa 2002: 4) highlighting the fact that individuals can only achieve their goals through deliberation over a ‘common good’ with others. According to communitarian theorists citizenship thus entails more than the relationship between an individual and the state, yet they argue that it is created through

(26)

group interaction and participation. Civic republican theories on citizenship try to combine individualist and community perspectives on citizenship by emphasizing what binds people together into a community but emphasizing that citizens also have individual obligations to participate in public affairs (Jones & Gaventa 2002: 4). Citizenship theory thus focuses on individual and community citizenship experiences, its formal status and practices. Using these conceptualizations of citizenship enables us to understand state’s approaches towards citizens and categorize dimensions of citizenship.

2.2.1 Citizenship agendas

In the study of state-citizen relations citizenship practices are distinguished from citizenship ‘norms and values embedded in political institutions’ (García 2006: 747). Different theories exist about the abilities of governments to produce and set the agenda to frame their ‘ideal citizen’. In his study on cultural citizenship, Bhandar (2010) focuses on the disciplining capacity of the government that is carried through government structures and sets of practices. The disciplining of citizens described by Bhandar corresponds with theories about the framing of citizenship (Pykett et al 2010, Druckman 2001). Theorists writing about framing agree that governments always have a certain model or normative idea of good citizenship that is being transferred to citizens. How this model is shaped and how much is being invested in citizens depends on the economic, political and social perspectives of the government (Jenson 2009). Jenson (2007) describes these government agendas as citizenship regimes, which he identifies as practices in motion. Citizenship regimes involve ‘fundamental norms, organizing principles and standardized procedures’ (Jenson 2007: 53). Different groups of state and non-state actors are involved in the process of framing and all of them are essential for the production of the ‘good citizen’.

How the citizenship agenda is build up demonstrates how much confidence the government has in the competences of the public. In Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (1969) she presents eight steps of participation and non-participation enabled and promoted by governments, each step assigning more power and responsibilities to citizens. Each step on the ladder represents a different level of how the state appreciates citizen involvement and participation. On the lower steps of the ladder citizens are not at all encouraged to participate. On the next steps citizens are given more power to ‘hear and be heard’ (Arnstein 1969: 217) but those in power still have the right to decide. At the upper steps of the ladder citizens are given the power to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with those in power and even get ‘full managerial power’ (Arnstein 1969: 217). In her writing Arnstein agrees that this is an oversimplification of reality but it enables us in this research

(27)

to situate the roles that are assigned to citizens in citizenship agendas, and their participatory power. How citizenship is exercised thus relies heavily on how the government is framing the ‘good citizen’ and what competences and spaces for participation are given to citizens.

Jenson and Saint-Martin’s analysis of citizenship regimes mainly focuses on the creation of social policies and social citizenship in the context of the European Union. Remarkable in their study is their observation of the power of governments to include or exclude certain citizens from citizenship rights and along with that the instruments governments have to execute their regime (Jenson & Saint-Martin 2003). The power to include or to exclude certain groups is an important aspect of the framing of citizenship as apart from denying access to citizen membership the government also has power to exclude citizens from the act of citizenship.

A plurality of perspectives exists on the ideal citizen. Important to analyze in this research is what model of good citizenship is being carried out and what actors are involved in implementing and executing this citizenship agenda. An interesting theoretical framework through which one can study the relationship between citizens and the political realm is Michel Foucault’s governmentality framework. Foucault defines government as ‘the conduct of conduct’ (Dean 1999: 10) where he tries to connect our behaviours, the multiple actors involved in government and the different governing techniques that exist. In Foucault’s analysis of the state, he observes that modern states have made a shift from a ‘primarily juridical to an increasingly administrative and technical basis’ (Flew 1997: 90). These techniques are deployed through a range of (social) institutions. Governments try to tackle issues, like the governance of security through these institutions by ‘establishing a relationship between political rationalities and governmental technologies’ (Flew 1997: 90). The objective in this study is not only empirically investigating citizenship agendas but it also strives to gain insights into the art of government. Foucault uses this term to refer to governing as an activity that requires multiple virtues such as craft, imagination [..] practical know how and so on’ (Dean 1999: 18) which comprises political rationalities and governmental technologies. Focusing on both political rationalities and techniques will enable us to expose citizenship agendas.

2.2.2 Citizenship practices

Whether citizenship is part of a universal set of values has been critiqued from different viewpoints. Gaventa argues that claiming universal rights ignores differences and structures of exclusion in society (Gaventa 2002: 5). Supposing universal rights ‘hides the realities of

(28)

power and difference that make some more equal citizens than others’ (Gaventa 2002: 5). In his multiple writings Holston acknowledges this aspect of citizenship and makes a distinction between formal (or legal) citizenship and substantive citizenship (1998; 2008). Formal citizenship refers to the membership of citizens to a political community (Holston 1998: 50) whereas substantive citizenship ‘concerns the array of civil, political and social rights available to people’. Limited citizenship occurs when citizens cannot practice these substantive rights and it is mainly through substantive citizenship that citizens shape their experiences. These experiences become the principle focus of their struggle to redefine those conditions of belonging to society (Holston 1998: 51). By looking at substantive citizenship practices, these patterns of exclusion (and inclusion) will be exposed, giving us insight into how citizens negotiate their rights and responsibilities.

Citizenship practices can be studied by looking at citizenship encounters and participation, where citizens, the government and private actors ‘communicate to transact matters of mutual interest’ (Goodsell 1981: 3)’. In an ideal situation it is through participation that citizens can affect outcomes of developments in society, in reality this process is not as linear as depicted in theory. Besides uncovering citizenship encounters and participation, another important aspect of citizenship practices is the negotiation and the performance of rights and obligations in society. Rights are negotiated through claim making processes and created through group interactions, giving citizens agency through their practices. A difficulty in this is the plurality of needs and interests among citizens. Besides a form of agency and practice, the negotiation of rights can also be seen as a ‘relationship of accountability between public service providers and their users (Barnes 1999 in Jones & Gaventa 2002: 5). Political and social obligations entail paying taxes, obeying the law but also participating politically and socially. Janoski (1998) notices that within citizenship theory the main focus is always on citizenship rights and not on the obligations citizens have towards the state and towards each other. In the study of citizenship practices I will look at the negotiation of both rights and responsibilities. When studying citizenship practices it is important to note that citizens are never a homogenous group and bring along different interests and opinions.

2.3 Conclusion

The theoretical discussion presented in this chapter aimed to provide the reader with an understanding of the main debates and discussions around the central concepts in this study. The growing amount of non-state security providers all over the world is significantly changing the field of security, and how security is governed. In addition the hybridization of

(29)

security is changing the way scholars look upon the role of the state as a security provider for citizens. The aim of this chapter was to show the reader the importance of the inclusion of citizenship into the analysis of security and security governance. This is important because not much is known about how changing security governance structures impact and reconfigure citizenship. Unravelling normative framings of citizenship (de Koning et al. 2015: 121) and citizenship security practices will provide us with insights into the distribution and allocation of rights, obligations and responsibilities in society. This will expose the current status of state-citizen relations in the context of security governance. In the following chapter I will elaborate on the research design and the methodological steps that I undertook throughout the research process. It explains how I put the concepts of citizenship agendas, citizenship practices and security governance into practice during my time in the field.

(30)

3. Research methodology

The most frequently asked question while doing interviews or meeting new people in the field was “are you Jamaican?’. When I explained that this was my first time ever in Kingston and that my roots are not in the Caribbean but in the Netherlands and South Africa many enthusiastically continued asking “how do you like our country?”. My response was always that living in Kingston is a joy and that Jamaica is a beautiful country. But together with all of its beauty Kingston is also a very tough city to live and work in. Not only was I confronted with security issues on a daily basis, it was a challenge to ‘read’ the city because of the great discrepancies and diversity between communities. In this chapter I will demonstrate how my research was conducted in a city that I categorize as city that is both beautiful and tough. I will reflect on the different experiences in the research process and discuss the methodological choices and challenges that I faced. The first section discusses the research question that derived from the theoretical reflection in the previous chapter and the operationalization of the main concepts. Next, I explain the methods of data collection and analysis, followed by a discussion of the methodological challenges I faced both during my time in the field and while writing up the results.

3.1 Research question

In this thesis the formulated research question is: ‘What citizenship agendas and practices emerge in the contemporary security context in Jamaica?’ This descriptive and explanatory research question is examined by specifying the question into three sub-questions: 1. What security-related citizenship agendas emerge from the Jamaican government in the context of security governance? 2. What security-related citizenship practices emerge in a lower-middle income community? 3. How are state-citizen relations influenced and shaped citizenship agendas and practices? Two main concepts can be derived from this research question: citizenship and security governance. The research aim is to increase our understanding of state-citizen relations and therefore this thesis looks into citizenship agendas and citizenship practices. Citizenship agendas include all governing techniques that enable the framing of the ‘good citizen’. In order to study this normative formulation of citizenship I look into the content, implementation and communication of security strategies. Furthermore, citizenship agendas

(31)

are studied through the analysis of institutional actors and their relationship towards each other and towards non-state actors.

Citizenship practices entail both formal and substantive citizenship practices. In this thesis the variables for citizenship practices include citizens’ perceptions and claim making processes of rights and needs. Furthermore, the study looks at (political) participation and security encounters on a community level. The final set of indicators and variables of citizenship practices are citizen’s views and practices of security responsibilities.

The contemporary security context in this research is marked by a shift from government to governance, as governing processes currently involve a wide range of both state and non-state actors. In the context of security in Kingston the multiple actors interact on different levels. Security governance in this research is measured by first looking at the mechanisms through which state and non-state security actors negotiate power. This entails the analysis of laws and regulations, and the distribution of resources. Furthermore, I look at security functions and resources to enlarge our understanding of the contemporary security context.

3.2 Mixing methods

Operationalizing the concepts of citizenship and security governance enabled me to make a shift from abstract conceptualizations to empirically measurable variables and indicators. Studying citizenship both on a state and citizen level requires the application of different research methods, especially because of the normative and interpretative load of the concepts. In the study of Jamaica’s security context and citizenship I relied mainly on qualitative research methods such as interviewing, observations and qualitative content analysis. Nevertheless I find it very important to include quantitative research methods, making this research adopt a mixed methods approach. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods can solve the problem of generality for qualitative research as they ‘may facilitate the interpretation of relationships between variables in quantitative sets’ (Bryman 1992 in Flick 2009: 31). Qualitative and quantitative research methods complement each other in a positive way. Using various research methods deals with the problem of method triangulation as it enables the researcher to ‘mutually validate the findings of both approaches’ (Flick 2009: 445).

The research was conducted in two phases. In the first phase of the research process I mainly conducted surveys to gain general knowledge on the topic and get familiar with the community. The study of Jamaica’s National Security Policies and other secondary material was also done in this first phase. In the subsequent phase the in-depth interviews were

(32)

conducted, based on the local knowledge gained through the experiences in phase 1. Other methods of data collection took place in both phase 1 and 2.

3.3 Data collection

Data for this research was collected in Kingston during a four-month research period between August 2014 and December 2014. As previously mentioned the research consists of a case study in a lower-middle income neighbourhood in the capital city. The choice for a case study derives from the aspiration to give a ‘precise description […] of a case’ (Flick 2009: 134) and gain detailed knowledge of a specific phenomenon.

3.3.1 Security landscape

The main tool to collect data on how the governance of security manifests and to find out the security landscape of the city was through observations. By actively participating in public life in Patrick City and in other places in the city I gained useful insights into the complex security governances structures of the city and the interaction between public and private security actors, and citizens. Activities such as taking the bus, walking the city streets and visiting public places such as shopping malls, restaurants and plazas were used as fixed moments to conduct observations. Furthermore, the countless informal chats with taxi-drivers, community-members, students and friends were important for understanding the security situation in Kingston and enabled me to uncover the most important security themes.

Secondly interviewing different security experts enabled me to gain knowledge on the history of security in Jamaica and the current security situation. For these interviews a topic list was used focusing on the following themes: background of the organization, security situation in Kingston, policymaking and security and citizenship2_{. The security}

experts came from different public and private institutions and organizations that were involved in security related matters.

Lastly I collected and analyzed a total of 50 newspaper articles on the topic of security and citizenship from two major newspapers in the country: the Jamaica Gleaner and the Jamaica Star. These newspaper reports also functioned as important data to gain insights into the history of security and the governance of security in Jamaica.

(33)

3.3.2 Community Level

The central focus of this research is a lower-middle income community in Kingston. The community, called Patrick City locates on the west side of the city and is surrounded by different community types making it an interesting community to study. Within the community three types of research methods were used to collect data: surveys, participant observations and interviews.

Together with a post-graduate student from the University of the West Indies a survey was conducted in the community among 84 residents3_{(N=84). The respondents were}

asked questions about experiences with crime, police-community relations, the presence of private security actors and responsibilities. The survey had an additional section for members of voluntary organizations. This section asked questions about type of organization, amount of meetings and the added value of voluntary organizations for the community.

Participant observations were conducted at different times when the neighbourhood was visited. There were fixed moments to conduct these observations, such as when the Senior Citizens Club or the Citizens Association and Neighbourhood Watch had their meetings. Many other observations took place while conducting surveys, walking around the neighbourhood or when hanging out at one of the little street shops. My appearance in the community as a young female with a mixed background often made me stand out and therefore there was always a lot of openness about my presence in the community and the subject of the research project.

To gain more insights into the attitudes of community members ten in-depth interviews were conducted. The interviews were semi-structured and a topic list was employed discussing the following topics: (community) participation, crime and security in the neighbourhood and responsibilities in the community.

3.3.3 Government level

From the level of the government this research attempted to uncover citizenship agendas. The research methods conducted to do so were expert interviews with professionals from the Ministry of National Security, the Jamaica Constabulary Force, the University of the West Indies and various representatives from Jamaican NGOs and civil society organizations. Furthermore, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on the two national security policies of Jamaica, 50 newspaper reports and secondary materials such as police reports and, country and parish profiles, for instance from the Social Development Commission.

(34)

3.4 Research location: Patrick City

As mentioned earlier the data collection for the case study took place in a lower middle-income neighbourhood called Patrick City4_{.The community was developed by the Jamaican}

government in 1961 and is located in urban St. Andrew (North-West). In 1974 the name was changed into Patrick Gardens but both names are used interchangeably, also by formal institutions. Patrick City can be classified as a lower middle-income community. Less than 12 per cent of the over 6000 residents in Patrick City live below the poverty line (SDC) and the majority of 1502 houses are (semi) detached and made of concrete and blocks (Census of Population and Housing 2011). The community harbours a total of 2319 households. It is a residential area characterized by broad streets and most houses have a driveway and free space with fruit trees around the house. The community’s public infrastructure meets up to a reasonable standard for instance most streetlights function properly and houses have sufficient power supply. Furthermore, garbage collection is coordinated in a relatively good way and even though the roads throughout the community have a large amount of potholes and other impairments, the community is provided with asphalt roads. This description of Patrick City connects to the earlier description of lower middle-income communities. The community would not be described as luxurious but there are also no levels of extreme poverty like in low-income communities in Kingston.

Driving from the city centre of Kingston you enter the community over the large, far-stretched Washington Boulevard that continuous to Spanish Town. Driving into the community points out multiple components that can be seen in many other middle-income communities in Kingston. There is a ‘Tastee’ restaurant that sells Jamaican fast food and along Patrick Drive, Patrick City’s main street there is a church and a kindergarten. Further up in the community there are multiple churches and schools. When you continue to drive along the main street you will reach a small fenced sports field and further up the road there is a small commercial area with shacks selling soft drinks, little snacks and jerk5_. Throughout

the community there are multiple other small business active in the community such as shops and garages. For many years the neighbourhood had their own police station. It was located on private property and when the owners decided to sell the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) left the community. Nowadays the nearest police station responsible for residents of Patrick City is in the neighbouring community Duhaney Park. This police station is responsible for 4_{Location of Patrick City is indicated on the map with a black circle} 5_{Popular Jamaican dish made of marinated, grilled meat or fish}

(35)

maintaining law and order in nine communities in total. Different community types, both high-income and low-income, border Patrick City.

3.5 Sampling methods

3.5.1 Surveys

Survey respondents were randomly selected but it was made sure that more or less equal numbers of males and females participated. Furthermore, I sought to have more or less equal numbers of people over and under the age of 35, and that households with different geographical locations across the neighbourhood were covered. In total 84 community members participated in the survey (N=84). The table below shows the demographics of the survey respondents distributed in percentages. In the interpretation of the survey results it is important to take into account the sensitivity of the research subject and that talking about topics such as violence, crime, the police and the government is sometimes seen as problematic. In the interpretation of the survey data I took these issues into account. % Gender Male Female 58.5 41.5 Age <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 21.4 20.2 20.2 13.1 14.3 10.7 Figure 2: Demographic characteristics survey respondents

3.5.2 Interviews

The selection of respondents for the in-depth interviews in the community took place through convenience sampling (Boeije 2005: 51), also known as snowballing. In the process of finding respondents members of the Citizen Association and Neighbourhood Watch (CA&NW) helped me to get in touch with other residents. I attempted to include respondents of different age categories and gender. In addition half of the respondents were members of the CA&NW, either in leadership positions or not. The other half were non-members. Unfortunately survey respondents appeared to be unwilling to participate in an interview after having completed the survey. Most people indicated not to be interested or to be too busy to do an interview. Throughout this thesis I will make use of pseudonyms

(36)

to guarantee the privacy of the people who participated6_. Sampling for the expert interviews was done through theoretical sampling whereby respondents were selected on the basis of their potential contribution to the analysis (Boeije 2005: 51). I created a list with the most important security and/or citizenship experts and based on preliminary research results and snowballing new respondents were recruited. To get a representative overview and a fair insight into the security situation I strived to include both public- and private security actors and civil society groups.

3.5.3 Newspaper articles

In the selection of the newspaper articles I made the decision to pick two popular Jamaican newspapers: The Jamaica Gleaner and the Jamaica Star. The first can be seen as a newspaper for a relatively high-educated audience and has a serious tone covering different subjects such as (international) politics, economics, sports and entertainment. The Jamaica Star has less extensive contents and its main focus is on covering entertainment news and other tabloid-type issues. The Star has a less serious tone than the Gleaner. Both newspapers are published daily. Incorporating printed media that addresses different audiences reveals news broadcasting on the topics of security and citizenship.

The selection of newspaper articles was done through purposive sampling (Boeije 2005: 50). On the basis of this sampling theory a list was made of approximately 18 concepts that are related to the topic. With this list I selected 25 articles from each newspaper. The articles had to be published between January 2014 and December 2014, so that it covers the whole year. Selecting the articles then took place through convenience sampling (Flick 2009: 122) due to money and time restrictions. To avoid a surplus of articles when a certain violent incident occurred, I endeavoured to make sure that the publishing dates of the articles were spread throughout the year. Furthermore, it was made sure that there was an equal distribution in the appearance of selected concepts in the newspaper articles, so for each concept a maximum amount of articles was chosen. As the focus is on how news on security is being broadcasted in printed media opinion pieces and reader’s letters are left out as much as possible.

3.5.4 Documents

To make a good selection of policy documents, reports and other secondary material I followed the four quality criteria as described by Scott (1990). These are authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning (Scott 1990 in Flick 2009: 257). Following these