Law enforcement security no longer is the exclusive purview of the state

Apr 28, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Growing security threat perception is one of the key drivers of the local security industry. No longer is law enforcement security the exclusive purview of the state, rather, the collective body of law enforcement services traditionally provided by state actors are now being provided by a combination of non state actors worldwide. Thus, the provision of security as a total management function must be accorded primacy by members of the local business community
In recent times, ever so often one comes across a report in the local media of a high profile robbery, or a series of high profile robberies, many of which see the victimization of well established corporate entities. Several being state or former state enterprises, which in former times, were well fortified against acts of criminal victimization; but which until now, have failed to mount an effective security programme that keeps pace with the government’s policy on privatization, and the co-modification of security as a public good.
The Guyana Revenue Authority, Guyana Post Office Corporation, National Insurance Scheme, Guyana Stores Limited and even the Ogle Airport to a less extent, are few cases in point. Under the traditional dispensation the government engaged the full force of its security apparatus to protect property under its control, without regard for whether the process was cost effective or not.
Whereas, the private security industry which renders service for a fee, by adopting a variation of the standard international sharing formula, could not protect property using the same approach as the government, since it did not have access to the human and material resources in the first place; and would not likely realise a profit, were it to employ “personnel redundancy” as a feature of its security strategy.
Despite the oversight and protection mandate of security practitioners in Guyana, very few are actually adequately checked to ensure they meet the organisation’s security needs and technical requirements.
In developed countries the escalation of costs associated with security begins with policy, and then technical measures and manpower last. While in developing countries, policy, manpower then technical solutions are the prescribed route for a number of reasons, but largely due to the reality that manpower is generally cheaper than technical solutions, and therefore dominates the solution options.
This explains why the security function in less developed countries is manpower based and revolves primarily around guarding. The fact that most security practitioners in developing countries are ex members of a number of para statals with objectives altogether different to those of the private security industry, only serves to compound the situation.
Since the private security industry is ex joint services driven, security managers are not always aware of wider institutional objectives due to a lack of convergence between the security department and other parts of the organisation, among others.
The traditional approach to security in Guyana and many other developing countries has been one where the security department was more often a circumscribed entity within the target organisation. Headed by an individual who understood very little about the overall objectives of the organisation, and who as a consequence, exerted little influence outside of security in its day to day running.
French engineer and management theorist Henri Fayol in his generic principals of management outlined six generic functions for industrial activities (technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting and managerial), however; security is that management function which has been the most neglected over the years. Given the reactive nature of the security function, one could argue that as with the developed world, the level of safety and security preparedness in developing countries like Guyana, would develop only in response to crisis situations.
So what is the difference between threat and risk? Simply put, ‘threat’ is a function of the perpetrator’s capability and intent to conduct certain types of attacks, whereas ‘risk’ is a function of the probability that your organisation will be involved in an attack (either as a deliberate target or just in the wrong place at the wrong time) and the harm that such an attack would cause. Even more simply, ‘threat’ = capability x intent, whereas ‘risk’ = probability x harm.
Threat assessments take into account a wide range of factors. To assess capability, one must analyse the quality of past performance, current trends, command and control (C2), logistic support and the extent to which a group can create its own opportunities to attack. (This is what we call in security capability profile.)
In concluding, I would like to pose some questions to the management of the above mentioned entities for the purpose of stimulating discussions germane to the subject at hand.
1. What is the current asset rating of your organisation?
2. What is its current risk profile?
3. When last was a security survey conducted?
4. When last was a security audit conducted?
5. Does its security master plan encompass the protection of “key” personnel?
6. What risk management methodology is used to determine security vulnerabilities?
7. To what extent are security policies being followed?
8. Has the organisation sought ISO certification for its security preparedness?
9. If no why not?
10. To whom does the chief security officer report?
Depending upon how these questions are answered the above mention organisations could determine how long their safety and security problems could likely persists.
Clairmont Featherstone

---

---