The KONE-funded project titled (In)Security and Democracy explores how the increasing use of security language in Finland and Europe threatens democratic governance. Drawing on insights from Hobbes and Schmitt, it begins from the idea that fear motivates the creation of state power and that claims of security allow authorities to bypass ordinary democratic procedures. While some crises, such as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine or the climate emergency, clearly demand urgent responses, the spread of security rhetoric into areas of public life that do not involve genuine existential threats raises serious concerns. The project argues that security, when used as a mode of governance, prioritises urgency, centralisation, and exceptional measures. These tendencies narrow political space, inhibit deliberation, and suppress dissent. Democracy, however, depends on openness, contestation, and the cultivation of civic virtue. When security thinking becomes pervasive, it weakens the habits and dispositions on which democratic life depends. The project therefore treats securitisation not only as a rhetorical move but as a structural transformation that can undermine democratic culture. By examining Finnish political and academic contexts, it offers both analytical and normative accounts of these developments. The project has four major aims. The first is to map the institutions involved in producing and reinforcing security discourse in Finland, including universities, research funders, public agencies, and private actors. The second is to analyse how security rhetoric redistributes resources, influence, and institutional authority by elevating issues framed as threats while sidelining others. The third is to identify institutional strategies for managing or resisting security logic, with particular attention to transparency, accountability, and access to information. The fourth is to place Finnish developments in a comparative international context, in order to understand how similar dynamics unfold across Europe. These aims guide three work packages focusing on institutional mapping, redistributive effects, and the management of security discourse.
Methodologically, the project employs discourse analysis, comparative political analysis, critical legal studies, and empirical research based on freedom of information requests. It does not treat concepts such as national security as fixed but examines how they are constituted within specific political and legal contexts. The research tracks how topics such as academic freedom, migration, and climate change are framed as security issues and investigates the consequences for democratic oversight and public participation.