Security of Politicians. They should not be overprotected or isolated

Terrorism is rare, much rarer than what most people think it to be. However, even the presence of a possibility of a terrorist attack is cause enough to spike up security levels permanently. After all we’ve always been taught,” prevention is better than cure”. Thus, it is always better to be adequately prepared to thwart an attack, than to salvage the situation after one has already occurred. Security is usually provided to important dignitaries of the state, such as the top officials, judiciary members and ministers, famous personalities such as movie stars or in some cases, sportspersons also. However, the most zealously protected persons, almost in every nation in the world, have to be the politicians. Almost every big gun from any political party anywhere enjoys an enhanced security cover, sometimes far more than the ministers. Gun totting bodyguards, endless decoy vehicles, a few flag escorts, these are common sights whenever any big name in the political scenario happens to pass by, bringing life for the common man to a literal standstill. With increasing political infighting, both internal as well as external, the threats to politicians have increased manifolds. Political parties of entirely contrasting ideologies have been seen to co-exist at the same level, and this is bound to cause some friction between them. Often this friction culminates into something more serious, namely violence, assassination attempts, vandalism and threats, the majority of which are applied on the opponent politicians to subdue them. As such, it is imperative that all politicians have to possess a fundamental level of security cover for their own good. However, as always, the most visible security measures are the most ineffective and useless ones. The masquerading of arms, the scores of bodyguards and escort vehicles, these are only meant for visual intimidation, and to some extent, assuaging the fears of the people. None of these would be very much effective against a well planned, co-ordinated attack. All these are nothing but security theatres, just for the purpose of satisfying the restlessness and allaying the fears of the general population. The ones that actually work are the measures like intelligence, investigation, and emergency response to nullify any potential threat.

There are several pros and cons to the security provided to the politicians. One of the most debated issues among the common man is the question whether politicians should be provided security by the Government. Obviously, any security provided by the Government will automatically mean a further drain from the public exchequer. This has led to the argument about if it is worthwhile to spend the taxpayer’s hard earned money just for the comfort of the politicians, most of who already have the means to fend for their own security, financially. As such, providing them with extra security is nothing but a totally unnecessary and avoidable drain on the public exchequer. Furthermore, the idea of protection and isolation of the politicians from the general public is not at all consistent with the idea of a democratic system. A democracy is where people choose the politicians to legislate. If the legislators themselves are not connected to the common people, they lose their perspective, and as such, the whole purpose of electing them is defeated. As such, politicians ” from their roots and sources.