Securitization and the Political Variable—The United States and Britain as Case Studies

Securitization theory describes a process by which an ordinary political issue is transformed into a security issue. In this way, it is possible to take extraordinary measures in the name of security. Securitization theory suggests that the issues that become securitized are not necessarily essential to the objective survival of a state but rather represent issues that elite groups have successfully deemed necessary for a state’s survival. This article seeks to extend the theory to include the political variable of an interest group as part of the criteria that transform a subject from being political to securitized. This article argue policymakers may choose not to include a particular group or segments of it in the category of ‘security threat’ because of the electoral variable that could affect their governance or potential election. This article will make a comparatively analyze the nature of the legislation, political language, and foreign policy in both the United States and Great Britain after Muslim citizens of both countries carried out terrorist attacks between the years 2001–2020. The hypothesis is that Britain, because of the inherent political potential of its Muslim community, prefers not to significantly transform Islamic terrorism into a security issue, while the United States does not consider the Muslim minority to be politically important and therefore reacts more harshly to the Muslim minority in the country after any kind of Islamic terrorist attacks on its soil. This article offers a new understanding of the importance of the political variable within the securitization theory.