As seen above, political risk has evolved to include conceptual changes, in order to adapt the discipline to fit into today’s world. A number of new types of risk have been identified; one of these is political-security risk (Lambrechts, Weldon & Boshoff, 2010:110). The field of political-security risk is still relatively new and as a result, there is little literature on the subject. Fouché (2003:18) describes political-security risk as “those vulnerabilities that flow from the political risk (policy responses to security threats) that are found in a specific country […] these could include, amongst others, political actions such as unpopular legislation leading to widespread unrest, restrictions on political parties leading to civil unrest, labour actions and even terrorism”. Fouché (2003) further focuses on the political-security components of traditional political risk, even though political-security risk stands on its own as a separate type of political risk; it must include several political risk elements in order to provide a correct analysis.
In his research study, Fouché discusses the two elements of national security and human security. These elements are incorporated by Lambrechts et al. to provide a more overarching definition. Lambrechts et al. (2010) divide political-security risk into three categories of security: transnational security, national security and human security. In transnational security the region is the main actor and factors likely to impact the region are analysed. An example of this is a border dispute. National security focuses on the state as the main actor and on problems that can arise both internally as well as externally. Human security sees the individual as the main actor and emphasizes the protection of individuals against threats such as ethnic rivalry. All these risks may evolve into risks affecting the investments of foreign companies.
Both transnational security and national security fall within the traditional conception of security which has its origin in political realism; it identifies security from a state-centred
perspective and limits the use of security to the military realm. This might include the protection of state territory and a focus on preserving national values and interests (Pringle & Lambrechts, 2011). As argued by Leone (2010:100), transnational security is also in line with a shift to a more post-sovereign focus on security; this looks at a globalized, post-Cold-War scene where multi-level authorities and unexpected events are weakening state sovereignty.
The last type or level of security is human security, seen by many as the major element in national security (Fouché, 2003:17; Mathur, 1996:333). Human security focuses on elements that are not emphasized by transnational and national security. After the cold war the focus shifted towards human security as the traditional security perspectives failed to match up to the new security challenges in the world (Pringle & Lambrechts, 2011: 55). Kaldor´s (2012) attempt to describe this new security challenge is useful: she argues that during the last decades of the twentieth century, the world and especially Africa and Eastern Europe, have witnessed the evolution of a new type of organized violence. She coins the term “new wars” to describe this type of violence (Kaldor, 2012:1). These “new wars” can be seen as different from earlier wars in “terms of their goals, the methods of warfare and how they are financed”. Often these “new wars” are about identity politics, either religious or linguistic; they differ from the “old wars” where geo-political and ideological goals were the focus (Kaldor, 2012:7). One of the characteristics of these “new wars” has to do with how the mode of warfare has changed. As argued by Kaldor (2012:9), terrorism can be seen as a form of this new strategy. Through spectacular, often horrible, acts of violence terrorist groups are trying to generate fear and conflict.
According to Fouché (2003), the main security challenges to the national interest emerge from issues related to mass-migration, political oppression and terrorism. As a result, the definition of security should reflect a broader view that takes into account the need for freedom from vulnerability in modern society (Fouché, 2003.17). The human security approach tries to change the traditional idea of security, where the focus is on national and regional stability, to put more emphasize on the human being. This means that the main challenges no longer have to do with military forces; the primary threats are now seen as domestic. These include human rights violations, economic failure and political discrimination. National security is no longer guaranteed only by military power,
but also depends on political, social and economic conditions (Tadjbakhsh, 2005:5). Uzodike and Isike (2009) sum it up well: “The human security conceptualization accommodates a wide range of issues that not only constitute threats to human existence, but also breed insecurity and societal anarchy” (2009:106).
Transnational security, national security and human security are not mutually exclusive, as Pringle and Lambrechts argue (2011), but mutually reinforce each other. Each element is important; together these elements bring about a better definition of security. Pringle and Lambrechts combine these three elements in a comprehensive definition of political security risk:
Political-security risk consists of interrelated security risks, including transnational, national and human security. It is caused or influenced by government or societal political decisions, politics, (in)actions, reactions, or other unforeseen events and can originate either within or outside the host country, [impacting either a selected foreign company or a selected group of foreign companies]” (Pringle &
Lambrechts, 2011:56).
This research study will focus more on the security elements of political risk and on the political-security risk branch of political risk. Thus this definition will be used and in conjunction with the previously stated definition of political risk.