Cătălin Andruș,
Rector,
„Alexandru Ioan Cuza”
Police Academy
The paradigmatic transformation of the contemporary geopolitical environment demands a structural and conceptual reassessment of national security, highlighting the dissolution of the traditional barriers between the military and civilian dimensions, and between internal and external threats. Within this new strategic architecture, the concept of home affairs is organically integrated as a fundamental, inseparable, and critical component of national security, representing the central pillar that guarantees democratic stability, public order, effective crisis management, and the uninterrupted functioning of the rule of law in the face of asymmetric challenges. This profound evolution places societal resilience at the heart of current security doctrines, transforming risk management from an exclusive institutional monopoly of military or intelligence structures into a collective responsibility, extended and distributed across the entire social body.
In this context, national-level programmatic documents— such as the National Defense Strategy for the period 2025– 2030—conceptualize defense as an extended partnership with the nation, placing the citizen at the center of the security effort and conditioning strategic success upon internal cohesion and a consolidated public dialogue.
The operational implementation of this complex vision is intrinsically linked to the development of a robust security culture, internalized through systematic and continuous processes of security education.
From a theoretical perspective, national security has moved beyond the classical, exclusively kinetic view oriented toward defending territorial integrity against conventional aggression. Modern academic approaches and official guidelines promote a multidimensional and expanded understanding, in which the management of home affairs and public safety intersects directly with the energy, economic, cyber, informational, societal, food, and environmental dimensions. This conceptual reconfiguration implies that security can no longer be generated in isolation. In a scenario where attack vectors target critical infrastructures of a civilian nature, administrative digital networks, or the mechanisms that shape public opinion, the state’s response capacity depends directly on the actions and decisions of non-military actors and on the effectiveness of home affairs structures in managing internal vulnerabilities. For this reason, modern national security is multidirectional, interconnecting the protection of borders, public order, and civilian cyber resilience with the macroeconomic stability of the state.
Security culture represents the body of values, norms, attitudes, and behaviours that govern the assimilation and operationalization of security concepts across the entire social body. This conceptual structure manifests itself on two interdependent levels: the societal layer, defined by the way citizens conceptualize security as a public good and a fundamental value, and the organizational layer, which concerns the integration of safety protocols and regulations into the day-to-day functioning of institutions and economic agents. Security education represents the pedagogical and institutional mechanism through which this cultural construct is built, and it is eminently preventive in nature. Its role is not the militarization of the public sphere, but the cultivation of a conscious security attitude, capable of critical risk analysis and of assuming responsible reactions in crisis situations. Domestically, sustained institutional initiatives—such as those launchedby the Romanian Intelligence Service or by the academic components of the home affairs system through university partnerships and awareness campaigns—demonstrate that the reference nucleus of security remains the citizen. The formation of an adequate security attitude acts as a strategic force multiplier, reducing exposure to manipulation and disinformation.
The strategic analysis of current risks reveals a complex spectrum, marked by the hybrid actions of the Russian Federation, the potential for contagion from the conflict in Ukraine, and the specific vulnerabilities of the Black Sea region and the Western Balkans. Contemporary threats are designed asymmetrically to exploit the non-military layers of democratic societies, placing direct pressure on internal protection mechanisms. Among these are hybrid actions carried out below the threshold of open armed conflict, disinformation and information-manipulation operations conceived to amplify social polarization, cyberattacks targeting public and private digital infrastructures, acts of economic espionage, the weakening of critical infrastructures operated by civilian entities, as well as radicalization processes. The common denominator of these asymmetric challenges is the human factor, which constitutes both the principal vector of vulnerability— through errors of conduct—and the first layer of defense— through awareness and education. The early identification of indicators of radicalization or of social engineering depends directly on the level of security literacy of the population.
For personnel within public order, home affairs, and national security structures, security education represents a mandatory dimension of professional competencies, correlated with institutional efficiency and legitimacy. This operational category is confronted directly with the necessity of making decisions under conditions of volatility and incomplete information, while at the same time being a preferred target for espionage or social engineering. Their training must address strategic knowledge, information security, analysis and early warning, inter-institutional cooperation, and the rigorous observance of ethics and the rule of law, with the process requiring continuous updating in relation to the dynamics of adversarial tactics. From this perspective, modern academic competencies in the field of internal affairs must ensure a perfect balance between the use of new technologies and the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms.
At the same time, the extension of security education to civilian personnel represents a central pillar of national resilience, given that the state’s vital functions and critical infrastructures are predominantly administered by non- military entities. Operating in strategic domains such as energy, public administration, healthcare, information technology, mass media, and the corporate environment, civilian employees become operational actors who support the structural effort of internal affairs and safety. Seemingly innocuous everyday actions—such as managing emails, using digital credentials, interacting on social media platforms, or disseminating information in the public space—can generate major vulnerabilities or can function as control and early-warning points, transforming the informed employee into an active element of institutional protection. This collective defense mechanism turns every workstation within an organization into a defensive barrier against cyber threats and industrial espionage.
At the international level, models of good practice offer solid benchmarks for the operationalization of these concepts. The Nordic-Baltic space employs the doctrines of comprehensive security and total defense—implemented in Finland, Sweden, and Norway—which treat security as an integrated effort of the whole of society, involving the armed forces, home affairs authorities, the private sector, and civic organizations. Finland’s national training programmes, addressed to leaders in administration, business, and media, ensure a shared vision of strategic interests. Likewise, the model developed by Singapore emphasizes social and psychological defense as an instrument for countering destabilizing information operations. These strategic approaches are fully consonant with the guidelines of NATO and the European Union, where national resilience— founded on the continuity of government, internal stability, and the protection of critical infrastructures in accordance with Article 3 of the Washington Treaty—is defined as an essential component of collective defense.
In conclusion, national security education, viewed through the lens of integrating the internal affairs and public order dimension, represents a fundamental premise for the stability of contemporary states. In an international environment dominated by asymmetric and hybrid threats, the exclusive delegation of security responsibilities to purely military institutions is insufficient. National resilience requires a society capable of identifying, assessing, and reacting appropriately to risks. The normative framework provided by the National Defense Strategy for the period 2025–2030, corroborated by the models validated by Euro- Atlantic allies, substantiates the necessity of establishing a permanent, inclusive, and adaptive system of security education—representing one of the most effective strategic investments in the country’s future and institutional stability. This systemic educational investment constitutes the only feasible guarantee for the long-term protection of democratic values and national sovereignty.
