Abstract
Over the past 40 years, the private security sector in Belgium, along with its related policies, has undergone significant transformations, with the industry establishing itself as a crucial partner in domestic security governance. Although the political context in which private security has evolved holds considerable importance in criminological scholarship, the specific processes of framing this phenomenon have attracted much less attention. This article examines the various approaches adopted by political actors in framing private security within policy formulations and efforts to introduce new regulations. Empirical data are drawn from parliamentary records spanning the years 1980 to 2020. By focussing on the parliamentary arena, we analysed how the issue – that is, the need for regulating private security – has been discussed, motivated and framed by those in power. Our results demonstrate that six conflicting and supporting frames revolved around three overarching themes: the function and position of private security, and what the government sought to protect in society. The findings of this study provide new insights into the forms, degrees and manifestations of framing private security, along with its relation to security events over time. Consequently, it offers a deeper understanding of the political field and societal conditions under which the trajectory of private security has unfolded in Belgium.
Introduction
It is now axiomatic that policing has expanded beyond traditional law enforcement agencies. This transformation is characterized by the increasing involvement of both state and non-state entities in the provision of security services, including commercial security functions (Van Steden, 2007), auxiliary police forces (Jones et al., 2009), and citizen involvement (Shapland and Vagg, 1988). Within this evolving landscape, the private security industry has emerged as one of the most prominent and extensive sectors. While the foundations of the modern private security sector in Europe can be traced back to at least the early 20th century (Leloup, 2020, 2021), sector-specific regulation was introduced at a much later date, predominantly during the last quarter of that century (Button and Stiernstedt, 2017).
As one of the most prominent mechanisms for ensuring accountability, the statutory regulation of private security has garnered significant attention in recent years. Various strands within criminological scholarship have focused on the comparative (Button and Stiernstedt, 2018; de Waard, 1999), economic (Scheerlinck et al., 2017), political (Leloup and White, 2023) and normative (Loader and White, 2017; Stiernstedt et al., 2021) aspects of private security regulation. Each of these studies has largely contributed to our understanding of the various characteristics, evolutions and systems of regulation evident in most industrialized western countries. In contrast, however, very few studies have closely examined how policy entrepreneurs, like the members of a government or parliament, have framed the need for specific forms of private security regulation, or as Birkland et al. (2014) put it, ‘the process of packaging one’s set of ideas in order to sway others to one’s position’ (p. 2). This is surprising because previous studies (Leloup and White, 2023; White, 2010) have shown that the introduction of a specific regulatory model follows a dynamic and competitive process of agenda setting and policy formulation. In Belgium, for example, the introduction and replacing of regulation has been a topic of long-standing political debates addressing matters related to policing in general and private security in particular (Leloup, 2021).
This study examines the approaches used by political actors to frame private security and the introduction and/or modification of state regulation. To do so, we focus on documents from the Belgian parliament which holds the symbolic, institutional and legislative power to propose and discuss relevant policies (Walgrave and Van Aelst, 2006). By concentrating on the parliamentary arena, we can analyse how those in power perceive, discuss and frame policy issues in the domain of private security and their solutions, particularly regulation (Lindholm, 2017). This study addresses the following research questions: How was private security and its regulation framed when new legislative proposals were submitted to the parliament for sector regulation? What policy frames have existed regarding private security and its regulation since the 1980s? What events have prompted shifts in the dominant frames surrounding private security (regulation) over time? The research data are derived from parliamentary debates spanning from the 1980s to the 2010s, a period marked by both the emergence and change of private security regulation. Our focus is on the most visible and extensive component of the private security sector, namely, the manned guarding sector 1 ; consequently other areas, such as private investigation, are not within the scope of this article.
To address these research questions, we focus on the evolution of private security regulation in Belgium, a country chosen for two specific reasons. First, Belgium implemented its first sector-specific private security regulation in 1990, 2 which is early relative to other European countries who adopted regulations later in the 1990s and 2000s (Scheerlinck et al., 2020). On several occasions, the Belgian legislature has introduced numerous legislative proposals, the most recent being in 2017 when a completely new private security regulation was adopted. 3 This enables an analysis spanning several decades. Second, in comparison to most private security regulations in Europe, the Belgian regulatory system has been regarded as comprehensive and extensive (Button and Stiernstedt, 2018), indicating the importance that legislators have placed on improving the governance of private security through regulation. Recent decades have seen a paradigm shift in the perception of private security (regulation) in Belgium (Leloup, 2021); however, little research has been undertaken to trace precisely when and how this change occurred. In light of this, we reconstruct how the issue of private security and its regulation has been framed in the political arena over the last four decades.
Regulatory mechanisms in relation to private security (O’Connor et al., 2004) exist in both state and non-state forms. For the latter, self-regulation can be understood as (voluntary) initiatives by variant sector associations for the development and promotion of industry standards. For example, in 2011, the Belgian Private Security Association BVBO-APEG, the largest national representative for the security industry, developed the Secure Quality Label to establish the necessary quality requirements among its members. Although significant, the focus here is restricted to formal state regulation that has been the subject of discussion among policy actors within parliament. Hence, we address a notable gap in the literature by identifying the evolution of key policy frames related to private security over time, and how they served to legitimize specific forms of regulation initiated by the state. Second, it enhances the wider comprehension of the values and conditions against which the role of private security, as well as its regulation, was assessed and articulated, and how they changed in response to events such as security crises.
We begin by exploring the various forms and functions of private security regulation, before outlining the methodology, sketching out the data collected and the use of policy framing as an analytical tool. Thereafter, we critically explore the results, with a thematic and chronological overview of the identified frames concerning private security (regulation) in Belgium between 1980 and 2020. To conclude, we reflect on what the dynamics of framing reveal for understanding private security regulation in Belgium and elsewhere.
Private security state regulation
Approximately 190 security companies in Belgium employ over 18,000 security officers (Leloup and Cools, 2022), the four largest, G4S, Securitas, SERIS, and Protection Unit, have a combined staff of around 15,000 (G4S, 2023; Protection Unit, 2023; Securitas, 2023; SERIS, 2023). With the enactment of the Law on 2 October 2017, regulating private and special security, the security industry has steadily expanded its scope and authority. Consequently, it is now acknowledged that the private security sector has become a full partner of the police, making an increasingly significant contribution to the integrated security model in Belgium. It is worth noting that the private security sector in general and the manned guarding sector in particular are along with approximately 40,000 uniformed public police officers, the largest players in the security landscape. This transformation has resulted in an increasing number of security personnel engaging more frequently with the public (Leloup et al., 2022).
The pluralization of policing in countries of the Global North has become a central issue in criminology. A growing body of literature has been published on various aspects of the commercial security sector, including its historical trajectory, role, powers, everyday practices, legitimacy and its position alongside public law enforcement agencies (see, for example, Bonnet et al., 2015; Cools and Verbeiren, 2004; Jones and Newburn, 2006; Leloup, 2019, 2020; Saarikkomäki, 2016; Shapland and Van Outrive, 1999; Wakefield, 2003; White, 2010). Nevertheless, one of the most significant themes in the literature concerns the regulation of private security by the state (see, for example, Button and Stiernstedt, 2018; de Waard, 1999; Terpstra, 2011).
Regulation is generally understood as ‘controlling or managing organizations and activities in a way that facilitates fulfilment of legitimate goals while eliminating or minimizing undesirable and harmful effects’ (Prenzler and Sarre, 2014: 857). Very limited forms of regulation can be found in the use of Belgian royal decrees prior to the 1990s, with regard to uniforms, equipment and staff requirements for private security companies (Leloup, 2021). However, despite the long historical roots of private security, industry-specific regulation for commercial security provision has only occurred relatively recently. Since the end of the 20th century, various regulatory systems have emerged in European countries, which when compared reflect significant differences in the width, depth and organizational characteristics (Button and George, 2006).
Through regulation, official authorities have sought to achieve certain public objectives with different forms of governance, such as prohibiting illicit activities, improving standards for the recruitment and training of staff, enhancing the quality of services and monitoring its accountability (Button, 2007; Button and George, 2006; Prenzler et al., 2017; White, 2016). Prenzler and Sarre (2014: 860–861) identify three main factors associated with the introduction of specific regulations for private security: the growing recognition of the powers of security providers over citizens, the increasing number of scandals and poor industry standards and the industry’s rapid growth from the 1960s.
As research has demonstrated (Leloup, 2021; White, 2010), such statutory regulation does not just act as an accountability mechanism, but can also provide legitimacy to an industry whose functions and presence are often challenged more than those of the public police (Loader, 1997). Indeed, and to some extent related to its regulation, consensus has been growing in Belgium, that the public image, and perception of private security, has become more positive (IPSOS, 2019; Leloup et al., 2022). However, research to trace precisely when, how and why this change occurred has been conspicuous by its absence.
Methodology
Data
In identifying changes in the parliamentary framing of private security and the need for state regulation, we show how such frames vary over time yet relate to each other. Our data are parliamentary records, which like Lindberg (2020) we consider as ‘a central long-term source of information on political culture at the macro level’ (p. 570). Our focus is calibrated around a specific set of events between 1980 and 2020, moments selected because of their pivotal importance for private security legislation in Belgium. In the more recent history of private security and statutory regulation, that is, since 1980, four such periods of major legislative transformation, when innovative proposals were introduced and debated in the Belgian Parliament, can be identified (Cools, 2020; Leloup, 2021): 1986, 1990, 2013 and 2017. As Table 1 illustrates, these four key moments witnessed entirely new private security regulation being introduced or adopted, and/or major changes to the existing legislation proposed.
Key bills regarding private security regulation, 1980s–2010s.
We are interested in examining how executive actors on the one hand framed private security, and on the other expressed the need for regulation. In each of the four selected cases, the bill proposals offer valuable insights into political perspectives regarding private security, the motivations behind implementing statutory regulations, and how these perspectives evolved over time, for the proposers of the bills. In this respect, our focus does not lie on party competition in particular, although this certainly played a role in whether a bill was accepted or not, as will be shown later.
All parliamentary data are digitally available and searchable, and the documents in which the legislation is discussed are publicly available. 4 A total of 23 parliamentary documents, containing more than 1200 pages covering the detailed parliamentary discussions for the proposed bills, were studied. Specifically, the data included summaries, explanatory memoranda, reports, preliminary drafts, bills, and opinions of the Belgian Council of State. A qualitative content analysis and frame theory was used to investigate the argumentation of the governments for regulating private security. Qualitative data analysis software MaxQDA was used for manually coding the parliamentary debates and bills, and for identifying frames used by the bills proposers. As Table 2 demonstrates (see infra), different frames regarding private security were present for each of the introduced bills.
Themes and frames related to private security (regulation) in Belgium, 1980s–2010s.
Framing analysis
Originally developed by Goffman (1974), the concept of framing has since gained analytical acceptance within social research. Framing is about ‘organising principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully construct the social world’ (Reese, 2001: 11). In the domain of public policy in particular, framing has been used to study the actions of policymakers in areas characterized by significant differences and conflicts concerning interpretation and action (Zito, 2011). While policy framing thus functions as a useful analytical tool in contested policy arenas, such as the commercial provision of security, criminological scholarship has yet to investigate the phenomenon, and its regulation, from a framing perspective. This is somewhat surprising, since regulation involves the implementation of legal measures to enhance the control and management of private security agencies, with the goal of reducing or minimizing undesirable and harmful consequences of their operations (Button and George, 2006). Hence, the justification for legal intervention aligns perfectly with such an analysis, where framing functions as a call for action to an identified policy problem (Van Hulst and Yanow, 2016).
Framing is indeed often understood as involving selection and salience in order to achieve public policy goals. In the words of Entman (1993), to frame is, ‘to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’ (p. 52).
Through framing, elements of issues are chosen and arranged in such a way that the problem and its causes are defined, albeit partially, and its treatment or solution presented and justified (Dewulf and Bouwen, 2012). More specifically, a policy frame includes a description of a diagnosis, which is followed by a prognosis and a range of supporting arguments or justifications.
To formulate solutions for policy issues using normatively acceptable language, high-profile political actors regularly appeal to the persuasive use of stories and arguments, a process known as rhetorical framing that resonates with cultural-historical understandings that can be easily shared (Béland and Howlett, 2016; Schön and Rein, 1994). As is often the case in a contested policy arena (Leloup and White, 2023; Prenzler and Sarre, 2008; White, 2010), policymakers considering private security regulation must convince others to support their political and technical-legal choices. By framing private security (regulation) through a number of general topics (cf. Table 2 below), the parties involved expressed their understanding of private security, its role, the issues attached to it and how they wanted to deal with it and why.
By analysing the incentives leading to major transformations in private security regulation at four different times throughout Belgian history, we can identify the (evolution of) different frames that were used to legitimate the regulation of the security industry. We will discuss how the Belgian legislator framed various matters of private security as part of the broader policing landscape, and discussed the need to regulate (certain areas of) the industry. By analysing transformations in frames over time for the same topics, we can identify paradigm shifts in how the role, place and powers of private security in, for example, the context of the appropriate balance between state and market provision, or the potential impact on human rights, were discussed and substantiated at different times in history.
Results
We will begin by first presenting an empirical overview of the principal themes and their respective framing of private security regulation evident in parliamentary discussions from the 1980s to the 2010s. In analysing the data, three overlapping topics emerged in the four cases, with each subject to debate and discussion through the use of distinct, often conflicting, frames. For all of the frames, a general diagnosis and prognosis is given (see Table 2). Second, we provide a more detailed chronological examination of the parliamentary themes and frames which we identify for the respective eras. This examination shows how various notable shifts in the dominant frames have occurred in each of the specific themes over the last 40 years.
Thematic overview of parliamentary frames
When analysing the data, three central overarching topics emerged, within which the necessity of regulating private security was contextualized by those who introduced the bills with the following concerns: (1) the nature of the services and activities provided by the security industry and its staff (i.e. economic vs policing); (2) the security industry’s position within the policing landscape (i.e. its relationship with the police) and (3) the values to be protected (i.e. citizens’ fundamental individual rights vs society’s security). A wide range of subtopics central to private security, such as activities, size, recruitment and training, accountability, powers, and standards, were also encompassed by the parliamentary debates surrounding these themes.
Regarding the first topic, the function of private security, we acknowledge that there are different perspectives on the nature and role of the private security sector and the services it provides. On the one hand, the industry is often framed as merely an economic or market-driven entity, while on the other, they have been defined primarily in terms of their impact on public and social order (Leloup et al., 2022). With regard to the latter, it is critical to note that the private security sector is not perceived as ‘just another industry’ (White, 2018), but rather as a policing entity with the symbolic power and authority to maintain public order and ensure compliance (Mopasa and Stenning, 2001). Consequently, more comprehensive mechanisms are seen as necessary to hold the sector accountable than for other industries where services provided are strictly economic in nature. As we will show shortly, both approaches alternated over time in Belgian parliamentary debates, with one approach being put forward alternately over the other.
A second crucial topic revolved around the position of the private security industry within the policing landscape, a matter that has been widely discussed in criminological literature regarding the state–market relationship in security provision. In the parliamentary debates, the industry’s position was primarily discussed in relation to the public police, and over time, various types of regulations were proposed to achieve the desired state–market balance. As the following sections will illustrate, several frames were employed to justify specific public–private relationships and their regulation from the 1980s to the 2010s.
The final overarching theme from the data pertains to the objectives set forth by the Belgian government in two domains that while not inherently conflictual, can be in tension with each other: the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights on the one hand, and the protection of society in general on the other. Especially in times of major emergencies, policymakers often face challenges in finding the right balance between security and individual liberties, such as in the context of terrorist threats (Demirsu, 2017) or public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic (Leloup and Cools, 2022). As the chronological overview of parliamentary frames will illustrate, this delicate balancing act and framing of various assumptions were frequently present in the parliamentary debates on private security in Belgium.
Chronological overview of parliamentary frames
Although there were regulations that indirectly affected private security companies in Belgium, it was not until the mid-1980s that formal industry-specific legislation was first introduced. The Law of 29 July 1934 forbidding private militias allowed for non-political, that is, commercial, security organizations through an exception clause in this 1934 law (Leloup, 2020). However, besides permitting the existence of private security companies, the law did not regulate the industry itself. For instance, it lacked provisions to define the private security sector, its role, activities, powers, training, education, and so on.
1986: Law on guarding companies and security companies
This changed in the mid-1980s when a number of legislative measures were introduced by the then Liberal Minister of Justice, Jean Gol, in response to a series of scandals and crises in law enforcement agencies and a wave of terrorism that affected Belgium (Ponsaers, 2008). The primary objective of these bills was to enhance the overall security of Belgian citizens. This was to be achieved by, among other things, improving communication and cooperation among various Belgian police services, enhancing police officer training and strengthening their capacity to combat organized crime and terrorism. However, in addition to improving the efficiency of public law enforcement agencies, the Belgian government also introduced a specific bill to regulate the rapidly growing private security sector. 5 Citing increasing crime rates and growing feelings of insecurity for the expansion of the private security sector, it stated that both citizens and businesses became increasingly reliant on non-regulated commercial companies for the surveillance of property, the transport of valuables and the protection of individuals. 6
In his justification for the bill, Gol stated that the 1934 legislation did not align with the economic goals of the private security companies and did not adequately address the broad range of security services they offered. 7 Using this rationale, the private security sector was depicted as an economic industry in need of suitable, more or less market-oriented regulation. When describing the industry, the then Minister of Justice took a limited ideological stance on the private security industry and presented the necessity for regulation in a more technical and legal manner.
Despite this market-oriented approach, the Minister of Justice did acknowledge that the security industry was obliged to operate under conditions that also guaranteed the protection of the fundamental rights of the public. However, some members of the parliament argued that his new legislative proposal did not go far enough in achieving this objective, asserting that ‘a number of amendments will be proposed to better protect the rights of individuals when confronted by a private security guard’. 8 Therefore, the law needed to regulate the conditions and minimum standards required during the selection, recruitment and training of staff; enhance the communication between security firms and the mayors of municipalities where they operated (specifically, information sharing from the private sector to the public sector); and prevent the formation of employer militias in labour disputes.
Regarding the private sector’s position within the policing landscape, Minister of Justice Gol pursued two objectives: first, to prevent any semblance of competition between the public and private police and, second, to facilitate suitable partnerships between the police and the private sector. The latter objective sparked a significant amount of opposition on the political left, who favoured the monopoly of the police in security provision. In particular, there were concerns that Gol’s bill would promote the widespread privatization of police forces and facilitate the unlawful exchange of data between the two sectors. 9 Ultimately, the government fell in 1987, ensuring the proposal was not put to a vote. However, by the time the next proposal to regulate the private security sector was introduced in 1989 (and successfully enacted in 1990), by the then Socialist Minister of Internal Affairs Louis Tobback, the political landscape had changed, and the dominant frames were subsequently transformed.
1990: Law 10 April 1990 on guarding companies, security companies and in-house security services
The late 1980s marked the prevalence of new frames regarding private security and its regulation. Beginning in the mid-1980s, private security legislation was framed within the goal of optimizing the services offered by the sector, and situating the industry as a junior partner to the police. By the end of the decade, the Belgian government was primarily emphasizing the potentially dangerous role of private security, rather than its contribution to security. Notwithstanding a change of political orientation from centre-right to centre-left in the government, concerns had been growing among critical politicians, lawyers, academics and journalists about the so-called creeping private-sector involvement in policing of the semi-public domain (Hertoghs, 1986, 1987; Van Outrive, 1986). The rapid expansion of the industry, the lack of regulation or decent training, and some instances of human rights violations by security personnel, combined with the fears of the competitive nature of private security towards the public police, served to transform perspectives during the second half of the 1980s (Leloup, 2020). In justifying the bill, Tobback asserted that ‘. . . at all costs, the security of citizens had to be maintained in a democratic and accountable manner, and that respect for fundamental rights and freedoms should always be at the core of this endeavour’. 10 Hence, the legislator made multiple references to the significance of citizens being able to exercise control through the right to file complaints should they become victims of private-sector abuses. 11 In order to prioritize public protection, the scope of the law encompassed not only security and guarding companies, like the 1986 bill, but also in-house security services. Simultaneously, other legislation was being prepared for private investigators, which clearly demonstrated the intention to implement wide and comprehensive regulation for the entire industry. 12
In comparison to the 1986–1987 private security bill, protecting fundamental citizens’ rights against private security remained a major concern in this new proposal when discussing the need for regulation. Nevertheless, also the framing of the private sector’s role, and its place within the security landscape, certainly underwent significant changes. In response to the proliferation of private security companies, the Belgian government approached the need for regulation predominantly from a state-centric perspective on policing. This approach emphasized the symbolic monopoly held by public law enforcement agencies in general and the police in particular. In 1989–1990, the Belgian government were clearly stressing the necessity to contain, and if possible, reverse the expansion of private security companies, whose role was preferred to be limited, and their security activities only tolerated under strict conditions. 13 In this respect, the security industry was no longer viewed as engaging solely in economic activities; their actions closely associated with, and seen as a danger for, matters of public order and security. 14 As a result, there were concerns that a parallel police force was emerging, which could potentially become a competitor to the public police. Consequently, new regulations were required to officially control, and if needed sanction, what was now being framed as a ‘private police force’. 15 Various unregulated practices were discussed, including the presence and activities of unauthorized security firms, a high number of false alarms, infrequent but significant instances of private security guards exceeding their authority, the undesired flow of information from regular police forces to the private sector and the inadequate training of private security personnel, leaving them ill-prepared for dangerous situations.
In an attempt to counter the privatization of policing and preserve the state’s perceived monopoly in policing, the Belgian legislature introduced new policy measures designed to reduce the size, role and powers of the security industry. By implementing extensive regulations, the dreaded overlap between the police and private security companies was stopped. Legislative goals were deliberated upon to raise the minimum standards within the industry, prevent the misuse of police powers and authority by private security guards, address the transition of former police officers to the private sector and limit the hiring of security firms by public authorities. 16 When the Law of 10 April 1990 on guarding companies, security companies and in-house security services was officially enacted, the legal scope of private security services was restricted to only four specific activities: overseeing the protection of movable and immovable property, protecting people, supervising and securing cash-in-transit, and managing alarm systems.
To summarize, the 1990 law on private security implemented a system of strict governmental control and sanctioning, with a set of restrictions on commercial security provision and a ban on public–private partnerships, that made Belgium the most comprehensively regulated state in Europe (de Waard, 1999).
2013: Amendment of law 10 April 1990 regulating private and special security
Although several minor changes were made to the law of 10 April 1990 since the early 1990s, none introduced fundamental amendments to the regulation of private security until at least 2012. This is not to say that no significant changes were made at all; for example, more than 20 bills were introduced between 1990 and 2010. However, they did not propose a complete overhaul of the existing 1990 legislation. This changed with the proposal by the liberal Minister of Internal Affairs, Joël Milquet, in 2013. 17
Since the late 1990s, several events shifted perspectives on policing in Belgium. Significant changes to the organization of policing and security, such as the establishment of an integrated police structure at federal and local levels, initiated what became known as the Kerntakendebat. Its objective was to identify police functions deemed ‘non-core’ and suitable for outsourcing to the market (Cools, 2006; Ponsaers, 2008). The 2011 announcement by the Belgian government in its Federal Agreement in which it clearly outlined its new perspective on policing: The roles of all stakeholders, both public and private, with regard to security, will be clarified to strengthen partnerships. Solutions will be sought to relieve the police force of certain administrative tasks and certain operational duties, including the protection of public buildings, courthouses, embassies, and the transportation of detainees. As a result, the police will refocus on their core responsibilities (Di Rupo, 2011: 146).
Ultimately, and for the first time, parliamentary hearings, 18 involving stakeholders from the public administration, police, private security sector, trade unions and the academic world, were organized to discuss the issue and the future role of private security.
With the above objective in mind, Joëlle Milquet presented the government’s proposal to fundamentally amend the law of 10 April 1990 in December 2013. The amendment aimed to increase the standards, quality and public image of the industry by imposing stricter licencing requirements on so-called cowboy firms, because the situation ‘was highly detrimental to private security companies that did comply with their legal obligations’. 19 During the explanation of the bill, very few references were made to the protection of citizens’ rights. The need for a change in this legislation, however, was primarily framed from the perspective of the police and its capacity issues in meeting security demands within society.
In light of this, and in clear contrast to the 1990 legislation then in force, most amendments were focused on expanding the activities and powers of the private security sector to act as a supporting force for the police, a role which was expected to be further extended in the future, making the industry a ‘real partner of police forces in providing security’. 20 First, private security guards would no longer be limited to monitoring individual companies in industrial zones, but the entire zone itself. Second, the draft also aimed at – in addition to private legal entities – public authorities to employ private security firms for commercial events, such as Christmas markets and fairs. Moreover, during disasters, floods, and fires, private security personnel were to be granted powers to oversee security perimeters to restrict access to them. 21
Unlike 1990, the government no longer emphasized the protection of the public monopoly on policing, now defining private security as a solution to capacity issues related to the police rather than as a competitor. However, due to the comprehensive nature of the then still active 1990 law, establishing public–private partnerships was challenging, and the legal activities and powers of private security personnel were consequently restricted. In the end, the amendment was only partially approved and little new powers were granted to private security actors. It would require another security crisis to bring about a more substantial regulatory change.
2017: Law 2 October 2017 regulating private and special security
The year 2017 marked one of the most significant turning points in the trajectory of private security in Belgium, as an entirely new legislation for private security was introduced that replaced the law of 10 April 1990. With the enactment of the Law of 2 October 2017 regulating private and special security, the legislator chose a legal framework with basic rules that would be further expanded over time through royal and ministerial decrees.
During discussions over the bill, the private security sector was, similar to the 1985 bill, once again characterized in terms of its economic and service-oriented nature and function, and with a stronger emphasis than before. Although some parliamentarians still viewed the private security sector in terms of its impact on public order, it became increasingly evident that ‘the government’s primary focus is to regulate a service market . . ., where the satisfaction of the clients-consumers who utilize their services should be of utmost importance’. 22 Furthermore, this was to be achieved through a ‘legislative framework suitable for market development over the upcoming years’, with the aim of imposing minimal obligations to ensure service quality. 23 One of the factors contributing to this new framing was the perceived professionalization of the sector, coupled with a liberal, centre-right government that placed a stronger emphasis on efficient market operation.
In parliamentary debates, attention was drawn to the then security crisis, which had taken on an unprecedented scale with a range of anti-terrorist police raids and terrorist attacks in 2014, 2015 and 2016, resulting in more than 30 civilian casualties (Ponsaers and Devroe, 2016). The focal point was the increased burden and workload on the police force. This was attributed to additional tasks not only related to the terrorist threat, but to a larger security crisis, including various prison strikes, and the refugee crisis for local law enforcement agencies. 24 To address the capacity issue within the police force and enhance overall societal security, the government initially turned to the private sector. The protection of individual rights was tacitly acknowledged by not extending the legitimate use of force beyond the police, and by retaining the oversight of the security industry. 25 However, in response to the heightened security threats, much greater emphasis was placed on the legal expansion of tasks and powers for security officers, such as conducting searches, frisking and implementing systematic access controls for the detection of weapons and explosives. While some of these new responsibilities might have raised concerns about potential violations to citizens’ fundamental rights at the end of the 1980s, dominant arguments had shifted towards the idea that society in general could – and should – be protected with the helpful support of private security. In this way, and in this context, the government justified the new legislation allowing such a widening of private security activities and powers.
Furthermore, and with greater robustness than in debates hitherto, the government emphasized the necessity of integrating the private sector into the integral security model, rather than considering it as a ‘mere subsidiary or a junior partner of the police’.
26
Although the concept of collaboration between public–private partners in the security domain, including private security, had gained traction since the turn of the century through initiatives like the Framework Memorandum on Integral Security, no concrete policy was attached to it, especially concerning the private sector. To substantiate and concretise their new policy vision for the role of the private sector in the wider provision of security in Belgium, the government clearly defined the purpose and significance of the new law: Revised legislation should facilitate the integration of added private expertise, encompassing knowledge related to technology, security and manned guarding, into the broader security policy framework. In this regard, this draft law can contribute to the discussion on the core tasks of the police. 27
This approach marked a complete departure from the monopoly frame that had previously underpinned the law of 10 April 1990, regarding the place for private security in relation to the police.
Discussion and conclusion
Belgian parliamentary debates concerning the introduction of private security regulation over the specific time periods we have considered, have produced various dominant, and often conflicting, policy frames which reflected the changing values and norms articulated by the government. As noted earlier, previous research identified an important paradigm shift in perceptions towards private security and its regulation in Belgium between the 1980s and the 2010s (Leloup and White, 2023). However, distinguishing the key characteristics underpinning these policy transitions was considerably less evident. By using a framing analysis, our study provides useful insights on these dynamics and identifies six conflicting and supporting frames, each related to three overarching domains in which statutory regulation was discussed as the solution to a particular set of challenges.
In general, the overarching themes relate to the function and position of private security, and what the government sought to protect in society. Each of these topics was framed at different points in time by emphasizing aspects such as the economic or law enforcement aspects of private security, or the need for regulation either to protect the monopoly of the public police or, in contrast, to facilitate public–private cooperation. Indeed, while the need for the 1990 legislation was primarily articulated in terms of protecting citizens’ rights, the public police monopoly and the policing functions of private security staff, the 2017 legislation was underpinned by a more market-oriented perspective. This included expanding the activities and powers of private security personnel to actively support the police. Through a process of deconstructing how (the need for) private security regulation was motivated since the 1980s, we were able to distinguish and compare the underlying political, economic and security motivations that have shaped regulatory initiatives and proposals until the 2020s. It demonstrates the various interpretations given to regulation and offers a better understanding of existing complex mixtures of what others have described as a cleansing model (Loader and White, 2017), and a regulatory and responsibility pillar (Stiernstedt et al., 2021) within regulatory governance.
Although valuable, many studies in the field of private security regulation have only focused on the nature, history, consequences and systems of actual legislation in force (Button and George, 2006; Leloup, 2021; Prenzler and Sarre, 2008; Santonen and Paasonen, 2017). By focussing on government officials’ framing strategies during the bill proposal stage in parliament, this study explored new ways to reveal what type of issues and solutions were emphasized in order to convince others, and how the need for (a different type of) private security regulation was justified according to the then dominant values, sentiments and principles regarding the social order and public interest. For the study of private security policies and regulation, this approach offers new understandings into what was seen as important at different points in time, and how particular events, such as a booming industry or a security crisis, steer framing and regulatory strategies.
The different parliamentary frames indicated which viewpoints and agendas government and executive actors put forward concerning security provision and the regulation of private sector involvement. As shown, such frames crossed political and ideological boundaries, indicating the often missed complexities in regulatory governance, as also discussed by others (Smith and White, 2014). For example, both the Martens VI centre-right government (1985–1987) and the Martens VIII centre-left government (1988–1991) actively supported regulation to protect liberal and human rights against abuses by the security industry. On the other hand, while those making submissions from the Martens VIII centre-left government framed regulation as an issue related to the protection of human rights and the public police monopoly against privatization, members from the 2011–2014 Di Rupo centre-left government surprisingly justified new regulation in terms of their aim to establish public–private partnerships and outsource police tasks to the private sector.
This is interesting, because in private security research, state regulation is often treated as a given, without taking into account the strategic choices policy actors make through motivating regulatory proposals. By adopting a framing approach, we are able to provide much more insight into the justifications and politics of new policy proposals, which gives greater nuance to the debates on regulation and its rationale. In general, private security scholarship has focussed on the concept of regulation as a statutory intervention to, among other things, prevent misconduct, increase quality standards, exclude people with criminal records from the sector and enhance accountability (Harkin, 2019; Hemmens et al., 2001; Stenning, 2000). Our findings suggest that, at least during the introduction of new bills, these particular objectives are only mobilized as smaller elements within broader debates on (1) economic or policing functions, (2) complementary or competitive relationships with the public police and (3) the ability to endanger or ensure citizens’ security. Each of these are topics of discussion too often missed in previous research.
Our findings also show how Belgium constitutes an interesting case study for demonstrating shifts in the state–market balance of security provision. First, we demonstrate how the security industry has been perceived as an economic sector, rather than just a policing actor, which has motivated the need for market-friendly regulations. In addition, through framing private security as an important partner to support and take over police tasks, more examples of a market-oriented agenda can be discerned. Notwithstanding its acknowledged model of comprehensive regulation, these findings challenge, or at least nuance, the basic assumption that Belgium has always followed little more than a clear state-centric trajectory in relation to private security regulation (Button and Stiernstedt, 2018; Devroe and Terwel, 2015).
The findings reveal the existence of tensions between different state-centric and market-oriented interpretations and arguments regarding the how and why of regulating private security. This process is influenced by prevailing norms and values at the time, and particular issues like potential violations of citizen’s rights or the unlawful sharing of confidential information between the private and the public security sector have led to varying interpretations of the necessary and essential regulation (Loader and Walker, 2007; Sklansky, 2006). To achieve regulation, conditions that might lead to such breaches of important values are examined and presented by policymakers in a manner that underscores and justifies the need for specific interventions. In this way, the article also illustrates the existing frictions between economic, pragmatic, normative and security considerations. At certain key moments, such as during security crises, police capacity problems or budget constraints, legislators became more inclined to pass legislation they might otherwise have chosen to contest in earlier years. A good example of this was the motivations and justifications surrounding the grant of additional powers to security personnel.
We also suggest the question if similar topics and their respective framing are apparent in other countries, and to what extent they too have functioned as the necessary conditions to achieve major changes in regulation. For instance, the Belgian case demonstrated that a prerequisite for reaching new regulation was the simultaneous alignment of the framing of three underlying themes. For both the function and position of the private sector, and state objectives on broader societal security concerns, policy actors underlined the essential economic and policing role of the industry in the broader security landscape, ultimately contributing to the public good. When all of these conditions were met, political actors agreed to implement new legislation with additional activities, powers and public–private partnership opportunities for private security, as demonstrated with the introduction of the 2017 Act. We have few insights into similar political processes for other countries. The development of private security is often related to, driven by, but also regularly constrained by its regulation. Analysing the justifications for regulation helps in identifying these dynamics. With this new reading of the politics and framing of regulation, we can bring a deeper methodological, theoretical and comparative understanding in private security scholarship.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
