 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
�Failed State�, Again Published on 01 April, 2006 According to the Foreign Policy, (July/August 2005) �U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned that "ignoring failed states creates problems that sometimes come back to bite us." French President Jacques Chirac has spoken of "the threat that failed states carry for the world's equilibrium." One of the major concerns of the United States has been how to deal with the so-called failed states. In the last century the major concern of the big powers was other big powers but now it seems that their worry is the failing state. Allegedly, the failed states are sources of drugs, illegal migrants, and terrorism and so on to the stable West. But how far the fear of failed states is real or imaginary? And if the fear is real, what are the forces responsible for the state failure? And, what is to role of the major powers in the creation of the �failed states�?
The definition of the �failed state� is still unsatisfactory. Max Weber, the famous German sociologist defined state as an organization with monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Therefore, states without such monopoly qualify as a failed state. Before the idea of failed state came into vogue, some writers introduced a distinction between �hard state� and �soft state�. Hard states were no-nonsense states with little tolerance for corruption and as such were efficient state. In today�s parlance these were states marked by good governance. Soft states were sometimes malleable and were riddled with corruption. They were inefficient and slow, if not dysfunctional. India was seen as an exemplar of soft state. Robert Rothberg is credited for introducing the concept of �failed state�. In his definition, sharply deteriorating living standards, self-serving elites, food and fuel scarcity and a high level of corruption are the tell-tale signs of a failed state. �On the political side,� according to Rothber, �leaders and their associates subvert prevailing democratic norms, coerce legislatures and bureaucracies into subservience, strangle judicial independence, block civil society, and gain control over security and defense forces.� (R. Rothberg, �Failed states in a World of Terror�, in Foreign Affairs. July-August, 2002).
Included in the definition used in the Foreign Policy article, �lack the authority to make collective decisions or the capacity to deliver public services. �the populace may rely entirely on the black market, fail to pay taxes, or engage in large-scale civil disobedience. Outside intervention can be both a symptom of and a trigger for state collapse. A failed state may be subject to involuntary restrictions of its sovereignty, such as political or economic sanctions, the presence of foreign military forces on its soil, or other military constraints, such as a no-fly zone.�
Clearly these attributes of a �failed state� are drawn from really existing failed states such as Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti. The list of the top ten failed states also includes (1) Ivory Coast, (2) Democratic Republic of Congo, and (3) Sudan. Haiti is ranked 10 and Iraq as 11. Sadly, Bangladesh ties the 17th position with Burundi.
The list of 60 states is divided and color-coded according to their risk of failure. The first 20 countries are coded red, followed by orange, and the last 20 are yellow. Pakistan and Nepal are ranked 34th and 35th respectively.
According to the magazine, �The World Bank has identified about 30 "low-income countries under stress," whereas Britain's Department for International Development has named 46 "fragile" states of concern.�
The Fund for Peace, an independent research organization, and the Washington-based Foreign Policy have conducted a global ranking of weak and failing states. �Using 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators, they ranked 60 states in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict. The resulting index provides a profile of the new world disorder of the 21st century and demonstrates that the problem of weak and failing states is far more serious than generally thought. About 2 billion people live in insecure states, with varying degrees of vulnerability to widespread civil conflict.�
The idea of producing a list of states at risk of collapse is controversial. Both the Colombian and the Peruvian ambassadors wrote in questioning the merits of such a list in the September/October issue of the Foreign Policy. Colombia was ranked 14 and Peru 44. The fact that Bangladeshi diplomats failed to issue a rejoinder shows a certain failure of the state machine. A senior USAID official, however, was pleased that such a list was prepared which might send an alarm bell to the nations concerned.
However, it is important to examine the factors that lead to the so-called state-failure. Iraq provides a clear example of state failure by military intervention. Somalia and some other cases show the role of outside powers in sapping the power of the state. But in a number of cases, the mess is a local creation. Some states are forced to collapse others corrode from within. What are the factors responsible for the erosion of the states?
In the face of globalization, some argued that states would be redundant; others thought states would be more powerful to officiate and smoothen the processes of globalization. In fact, both arguments are valid. In the uneven world forces of globalization weaken some states as they make some states especially powerful. It is not a surprise, then that the 7 of the 10 most at-risk countries are from Africa. These are also the countries that perform miserably in the achievement of Millennium Development Goals. Many of these countries were also the sites of civil wars instigated by super-power rivalry of the past decades. It is the economic failures caused by a complicated set of historical and politico-economic forces weaken certain states. The vulnerability is not irreversible.
We can be patriotic and debunk the whole idea of failed state, as a western conspiracy but there is no denying the fact that the weaknesses in our governance are real. Just consider the failure of tax-collection or the declining law order situation. The real tragedy for Bangladesh is that many of the problems are self-inflicted. There is a complete failure of consensus in Bangladesh where the government and the opposition see one another as enemies. In the index for measuring state failure lack of authority to make collective decisions is an important sign. Let us take the example of bomb attacks of August 17, 2005 or August 21, 2004. In the latter instance, the inaction of the government was conspicuous. By the way, what happened to Partha who was arrested from an internet caf� for his alleged involvement in that attack and now that we hear different story from some of the suspects under custody following the recent spate of bombings. In order for the government to earn even a semblance of credibility it has to act decisively and fairly to fight terrorism before the problem gets out of hand. If political considerations mar decisions as to whether a crime should or should not be investigated that is as hopeless a situation as it gets. The fact that following the recent bombings the law enforcing agencies could make a number of arrests negate the idea of state failure. Time and again, the law enforcing agencies in Bangladesh have shown their ability to perform but only selectively. In fact, the government machinery has capability that remains unutilized or, worse, misused. It is in times of disasters, we show our real potential. In the past few years both under the Awami League administration as well as the present administration, the government could act decisively and admirably to tackle huge flood disasters.
The true tragedy of Bangladesh is that we fail not because we cannot succeed but because we do not want to. The gap between what is achievable and what is achieved in Bangladesh is both enormous and sad.
The characterization of Bangladesh as a �failed state� or seeing 2 billion people at risk by the Foreign Policy is an exaggeration. But sometimes an error on the side of caution is preferable to denial of an ailment. There are good reasons to worry about a failed world not just a failed state, yet there is no excuse for not setting our own house in order.
Dr. Habibul Haque Khondker teaches Sociology at the National University of Singapore.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |