Security is the buzzword of the hour.
Political agendas, such as Ursula von der Leyen’s guidelines for the European Commission (2024–2028) or the security package proposed by Germany’s governing coalition, rely heavily on rhetoric around protection, defense, and deterrence. The 2025 German snap election campaign promises more of the same. But what—and who—is actually being “protected”? It’s curtain call for the German security theater.
Security is staged as a vacuum to be filled, a platform where politics performs the narrative of hard power. “We will examine all policy areas through the lens of security,” declare the European Commission’s guidelines. In translation, this means distrust. The worst is always assumed: threats are preemptively anticipated, requiring swift, “effective” responses. The stage is set, the scenario scripted. All necessary props are gathered to ensure preparedness—even if it requires unilateral geopolitical moves. The script must never be deviated from. Germany and Europe know their lines. Curtain up.
A Solo Act of Rigid Security Thinking
This unilateralism reveals a rigid security mindset that relies on control and enforcement. “Europol's staff is to be doubled; Frontex’s, tripled.” This militarizes the state, reinforcing governmental power, ostensibly in the name of protection. But pulling back the curtain on this security theater reveals the brutality behind the scenes: the expansion of Frontex is justified under the pretext of preventing deaths in the Mediterranean. In reality, it underscores an increasingly militarized border policy that repels and endangers those seeking safety in Europe—the very safety Europe claims to embody.
Whose security is being defended, then? It is the security of a supposedly homogeneous European society, one that seals itself off externally and surveils internally. The security theater frames “Others” as threats and disruptive elements to be monitored. This narrative normalizes interventions that were unthinkable just a few years ago; interventions that society continues to ignore, or even endorse.
This trend is encapsulated by the term “securitization”: societal issues are framed as security risks to justify authoritarian measures. Securitization also manifests in digital policy: public surveillance, biometric databases, data retention laws—all of these measures deeply infringe on our lives and fundamental rights, supposedly to protect public safety. Yet what is truly being performed is a play about control, not care. And it is a long-running hit on stages worldwide.
Security Myths, Not Security Gaps
Behind the digital policies promoted under the securitization agenda lie implicit promises:
These measures will be used to protect (only) “our” society and “our” prosperity from “the Others” (e.g., through biometric controls at EU borders or prepaid cards for refugees). This discourse fosters acceptance: far-reaching measures appear justified and necessary. These measures continuously construct “otherness,” deepening social divides. They rely on envy, distrust, and foster a sense of superiority. How else can we explain the increased use of algorithms to detect welfare fraud (albeit ineffectively) while large-scale tax evasion by the wealthy, which costs societies far more, remains free from comparable automated scrutiny and surveillance?
Technical measures are often introduced in response to extreme, isolated incidents and are quickly expanded to apply to other offenses. For example, the deadly attack in Solingen served as the starting point for the latest security package. This illustrates a common pattern, where securitization measures are often broadened on the heels of the horsemen of the infocalypse—terrorism, child sexual exploitation, and other organized crimes.
Time and again, they prove ineffective, neither preventing crimes nor aiding victims. They are theater.
This securitization debate does not create safety—certainly not for everyone and certainly not without cost. In fact, new security laws are applied, for example, to suppress civilian protests.
The security theater poses not only legal but also technological challenges. Surveillance and censorship tools initially implemented for one context in one country, quickly become desirable for other purposes elsewhere. Companies, especially platform operators, find it difficult to resist deploying existing solutions, once legal requirements demand it.
Whose Security?
A closer look reveals that the promise of “security” does not apply to everyone. The stage on which security is performed always assigns leading and supporting roles, casting people as protagonists or antagonists. Particularly Muslims, and those perceived as such, are often thrust into the spotlight: they represent the constructed image of the “dangerous Other.”
Since the 9/11 attacks, the image of the “Islamist threat” has become central to the security discourse. Muslim bodies are portrayed on the security state’s stage as suspicious, conspicuous, and potentially dangerous. This performance profoundly affects the lives of Muslims and those perceived as such—whether through mosque surveillance, inclusion in databases, or the constant politicization of the hijab.
The security package in particular illustrates the division between protagonists and antagonists. Half of the package, the “Anti-Terrorism Enhancement Act,” claims to target both Islamist and far-right terrorism. Yet it is paired with a second act that reveals its true intent: a law passed in late October 2024 stipulates that refugees lose their protected status if they travel to their home country without a “morally compelling” reason. Notably, refugees from Ukraine are exempt from this rule.
Even visual language reinforces the construction of the “dangerous Other,” as in a promotional film by Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, proudly shown at its visitor center. In just 15 seconds, it starkly illustrates whose security is prioritized—and against whom.
These measures portray Muslim bodies as entities to be controlled. Their impact is felt not just institutionally but also in daily life: police checks, social stigmatization, and constant suspicion. Muslims become objects of a security discourse that criminalizes them while ignoring or downplaying their need for protection, such as from racist violence. The security theater’s set obscures the fact that what is being created is not security for all but a hierarchy of suspicion.
An Alternative Script: Reimagining Security
But what if we rewrote this play, the security narrative, from the ground up? An alternative safety playbook would view security not as a matter of control but as a process of collective care. Feminist, anti-racist, and abolitionist movements have long shown that security can and must be reimagined beyond surveillance and repression.
These approaches focus on trust, strengthening communities, and addressing real threats. Anti- and counter-surveillance strategies aim to dismantle the mechanisms of the security state, creating spaces where security arises from solidarity, justice, and care.
These alternatives do not ask, “How do we protect ourselves from Others?” Instead, they ask, “How can we be safe together?” How can we create spaces where everyone is heard and where security is not a pretext for surveillance but a promise of justice?
Without rewriting the script, the security theater will continue to perform the same play over and over: a story of fear, control, and exclusion. The state casts people as threats to state security, becoming a threat to social solidarity in the process. But we do not have to remain mere spectators of this performance. It is time to pull back the curtain, expose the mechanisms of this play, and write a new story. A narrative not rooted in surveillance but in care.
Are you ready for a new script?