A-Infos (en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #45 - Editorial: Security or Authoritarianism? -- The Security Decree and the Repressive Drift of the Global Crisis State (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

There is a word that has obsessively recurred in the political lexicon 
of recent years: security. A seemingly neutral, almost reassuring word. 
Yet, in its concrete application, it increasingly translates into a 
strengthening of repressive apparatuses, a restriction of freedom, and 
an authoritarian redefinition of the relationship between state and 
citizens. Law No. 54 of April 24, 2026-which converts the Security 
Decree of February 24-fits squarely into this trajectory. And it does so 
with a radicality that is difficult to read in isolation, except within 
a broader transformation of the global context.
The historical phase we are experiencing is marked by a progressive 
breakdown of the international balances established after the end of the 
Cold War. The multilateral system is showing evident cracks, 
international law is often applied selectively, and competition between 
great powers is once again dominating global relations. In this 
scenario, war is increasingly becoming a common tool for regulating 
power relations. The conflict in Ukraine, tensions over energy, 
semiconductors, and strategic raw materials, proxy wars, and economic 
pressures shape an increasingly unstable, fragmented world riddled with 
blockade logic.
It is within this framework that the concept of security is changing. It 
no longer concerns merely the protection of citizens, but becomes an 
integral part of a broader crisis management strategy. States, once 
again central to their role after decades of neoliberal rhetoric about 
their downsizing, are strengthening their powers not only to govern the 
economy, but also to control societies plagued by inequality, tension, 
and widespread insecurity.
The 2026 security decree represents a national element of a broader, 
international trend. Not so much an exceptional deviation, but rather 
the coherent expression of a model that, in the face of crisis, 
prioritizes the control and repression of dissent rather than 
politically addressing inequality and the redistribution of wealth.
The economic dynamics of recent decades have led to a significant 
concentration of wealth. A growing share of global wealth is held by a 
small minority, while large segments of the population experience 
increasingly widespread precarious conditions. Even in Europe, the 
social divide remains marked. In this context, the neoliberal promise of 
widespread well-being has gradually transformed into a reality 
characterized by economic polarization and social fragmentation.
Faced with this divide, the dominant political response has not been to 
strengthen welfare, but to develop new tools for managing social 
conflict. So-called "war Keynesianism" is a clear example: while 
healthcare, education, and social rights remain under pressure, military 
spending grows significantly and becomes a lever for economic policy. 
Resources are raised, but directed toward warfare rather than collective 
well-being.
In this scenario, internal and external security tend to merge. The 
enemy can be external-geopolitical-but also internal: the migrant, the 
poor, the dissident.
It is here that the security decree shows its most evident face.
Expanding the "justifications" for police forces is not merely a 
technical measure: it helps create a space in which the use of force is 
more easily legitimized. What should remain exceptional is thus 
normalized. Citizens are increasingly at risk of being perceived not as 
subjects to be protected, but as potential disruptive agents to be managed.
The strengthening of surveillance tools-wiretapping, data collection, 
monitoring-also fits into this same logic. In a society marked by 
economic and social insecurity, control is often presented as the most 
immediate response. But it is a response that can produce a specific 
effect: transforming freedom into risk and dissent into suspicion.
The centralization of power in the Ministry of the Interior follows a 
similar trajectory: less mediation, less autonomy, greater verticality 
in decision-making. It is the model of a state that tends to strengthen 
itself not through social consensus, but through the ability to make 
rapid decisions, sometimes stifling normal democratic processes.

In terms of immigration, the law consolidates a now structural trend: 
the construction of migrants as security concerns. Detention, selection, 
control. Behind this rhetoric, however, lies a material dimension: the 
production of a vulnerable workforce, deprived of full rights and 
serving an economy based on downward competition.
No less significant is the tightening of public order regulations. 
Social conflict is increasingly criminalized. Protesting, occupying, and 
resisting risk being considered not just political acts, but potentially 
punishable behaviors. In this way, dissent is gradually shifting from 
democratic to criminal law.
This is a crucial step. Because when conflict is repressed, it rarely 
disappears: more often, it radicalizes, shifts, or takes on new forms.
From a libertarian communist perspective, all this appears to be part 
of a coherent design. In a system marked by structural inequalities and 
recurring crises, the state tends to intervene not so much to transform 
material conditions, but rather to manage their consequences through 
increasingly authoritarian means.
Security thus becomes an ideological device: it serves to legitimize the 
suppression of rights, to build consensus around fear, and to shift 
attention from the root causes of crises to their most visible 
manifestations.
At the same time, cultural narratives of identity that promise 
protection and belonging are gaining strength. "God, country, and 
family" once again become watchwords in a context marked by 
precariousness and disorientation. But these are often simplified 
responses, which construct exclusionary communities based on the 
distinction between those who belong and those who remain outside.
In this framework, democracy does not disappear, but rather changes 
form. It retains its procedures, but tends to progressively become less 
substantial. Power is concentrated, economic and technological elites 
are gaining increasing influence, and the space for dissent is 
shrinking. We speak of "illiberal" democracies, but perhaps it would be 
more accurate to speak of systems in which the democratic form coexists 
with increasingly authoritarian practices.
The 2026 security decree represents a concrete expression of this 
transformation. Not an anomaly, but a symptom. Not a purely emergency 
response, but a structural choice.
And so the question returns, more urgent than ever: security for whom? 
And against whom?
If security ends up meaning, above all, control, surveillance, and 
repression, then it risks no longer coinciding with collective 
protection, but with the management of fear and conflict through force.
Is there an alternative? Yes. But it requires a radical shift in 
perspective. It means recognizing that real security stems from 
dignified material conditions: work, housing, health, education. It 
means rebuilding social bonds, strengthening democratic participation, 
and redistributing wealth and resources.
Above all, it means rejecting the idea that authoritarianism is an 
inevitable response.
Because when security becomes the name used to justify the reduction of 
freedom, we risk crossing a dangerous threshold.
And the 2026 security decree seems to point precisely in this direction.

http://www.alternativalibertaria.org
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en