Emergency Powers

In the war on terror, it is observed that many democratic states have restricted liberties by applying the so-called “emergency powers” to deal with terrorism. Emergency powers derived from the preventive security laws allows the government to safeguard the security of the state while limiting the damage to liberty and democracy. As Paul Wilkinson remarks, “In countering terrorism, the democratic state confronts an inescapable dilemma. It has to deal effectively with the terrorist threat to citizens and the state itself without destroying basic civil rights, the democratic process, and the rule of law.” It is firmly believed by the state that by adopting preventive laws, and by temporarily suspending rights and liberties, it empowers the state to provide immediate security and protect civil rights in the long term. However, such preventive laws are just one of the many counter move against terrorism threat; others might include increasing physical security, promoting cooperation among other enforcement agencies, sharing of intelligence resources, enhancing punishments for convicted terrorists, and adopting stiffer negotiation strategies. These ancillary countermeasures taken by the government were less controversial unlike the enactment of those preventive anti-terror laws. Often, counter-terrorism legislations are deemed contentious because they have to have a “trade-off” as

While the costs of using emergency powers may be large, the costs from abuses of emergency powers can be much greater. Throughout the scholarly literature on terrorism, it is commonly asserted that there is a tradeoff when states use emergency powers. Many scholars assume that emergency powers will be effective, but will also be abused in ways that threaten democracy. For example, Paul Wilkinson describes the consequences of emergency powers in the following