Description
This paper raises concerns about the Ontological Security Theory's (OST) limited consideration of security's heterogeneity and its dependence on temporal and spatial contexts. OST posits that a state endeavors to ensure the stability of its biographical narrative. However, the Vernacular Security Approach (VSA) argues that security is construed differently by various actors, across diverse locations and at different points in time. Consequently, this paper explores whose ontology a state seeks to safeguard, in which contexts, and at what junctures does it assert its protection?
This inquiry arises from VSA's compelling evidence that security and related concepts, such as counter terrorism, threats, border and so on, are perceived distinctively at elite and non-elite strata. Furthermore, the insights gleaned from VSA underscore the inevitability of shifts in security paradigms across diverse time-space configurations, casting doubt on the referent object of states in their pursuit of Ontological Security (OS). Thus, this paper contends that while states can fortify their OS, they concurrently compromise the OS of certain segments of their citizenry.
To substantiate this argument, this paper conducts a comparative analysis of elite and non-elite perspectives on the Prespa Agreement. Additionally, it underscores the conspicuous disparities in how elite and non-elite groups perceive Greek Macedonian identity. These disparities raise questions about whose security is prioritized in the context of the Prespa Agreement, particularly in light of the conflicting claims surrounding Greek Macedonian identity at analysis.
