Neatee Koun Khmers: Exploring the notion of failed states

By Koun Khmer

I hope you had a nice break. I took time off from my busy schedule to rest, to relax, and to reflect on what we are doing here in this forum. The year of 2010 went by so fast that although we started this forum in November, it seems like it was yesterday. In fact it has been a few weeks already since we last discussed. The concept of political institutions was complex, but we managed to generate some substantive and heartfelt discussions. As we continue to reflect on various ideas and concepts, I hope that we can see both the flaws and the goodness of our people, our leaders, and our political system. My hope is that we continue to share, to care, and to learn.

I am excited about 2011. There are more ideas and concepts we will be exploring together. If time and circumstance permit, this year we have to investigate and to explore the concept of ‘Indochina.’ A broad conceptual discussion about Indochina, I hope, will illuminate some of the vexing border issues about which we are constantly debating. Perhaps, the discussion would also enhance our understanding of the January 7^th, 1979 Vietnamese invasion as more literature about the event becomes available. We will, of course, pick up other ideas and concepts that happen to come our way.

This week, for example, I could not let the concept of ‘failed states’ goes by without a thorough discussion. When we discussed the concept of political institutions, one of the participants used the term “fail[ed] state” in one of his/her comments. The concept is important because it has both domestic and international implications. Currently, the Foreign Policy website ranks Cambodia 42^nd with the score of 88.7 along with Laos and Rwanda in the Failed States Index.

Brown (2009) explained, “A score of 120, the maximum, means that a society is failing totally by every measure” (p. 20). The Failed States Index aggregates a country’s score from 12 different indicators: Demographic Pressures, Refugees/IDPs, Group Grievance, Human Flight, Uneven Development, Economic Decline, Delegitimization of the State, Public Services, Human Rights, Security Apparatus, Factionalized Elites, and External Intervention.

How do you feel about the future prospect of Cambodia? Or how do you feel about the labeling? What should we do as a nation to improve its condition? Or should we pay attention to this scoring system at all? Please share your perspective.

There is a proliferation of literature on the notion of failed states; however, this article relies on a selected few to give us enough content for our discussion. Although there is a consensus among scholars when it comes to a conceptual definition, the lenses through which each drew his/her analysis give us a broad perspective of the concept. While Manjikian (2008) along with Boas and Jennings (2007) suggest that the concept exists in part to serve Western interests, Brown (2009) views the concept with the focus of global stability and environmental impacts. Furthermore, Kraxberger (2007) adds a dimension to the concept by using Gros’ typology of dysfunctional states to enhance our understanding while Bilgin and Morton (2004) provide us with a distinction between ‘failed and rouge’ states. Finally, Jones (2008) argues that the formulation of the concept which is being accepted in academic and by politicians is flawed.

On the one hand, Manjikian (2008) who critically diagnoses the concept from a medical perspective argued that essentially the labeling of nations as failed states serves a dominant power relationship between the well states and sick states; therefore, the sick state has no voice and less autonomy in decision making regarding its future its sovereignty.

Current thinking about failed states rests on Realist assumptions that a state is essentially about power. A state “fails” when it lacks control over its population and its territory and when it fails to possess a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The website for the Foreign Policy Institute includes the following indicators in its assessment of the state’s overall health: extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay. (Manjikian, 2008, p. 342)

Similarly, Boas and Jennings (2007) argues that the labeling of failed assumes a certain generalization about how all states are supposed to function. The conventional thinking of failed states is closely tied to a view of the modern state system that assumes that all states are essentially alike and function in the same way; that is, states control their borders, have a monopoly on the use of force, and generally supervise the management and regulation of economic, social, and political processes. “States considered to be functioning are perceived as legitimate actors and worthy recipients of Western donor assistance, whereas those unable or unwilling to function according to the template tend to be regarded with some suspicion, and/or are assumed to represent a security threat to the Western world” (p. 477).

On the other hand, Brown (2009) who views failed states from an environmentalist perspective argues that failing states present the greatest threat to global order and stability. There is a link between the ranking on the Failed State Index in key demographic and environmental indicators. “Of the top 20 failed states, 17 have rapid rates of population growth, several of them expanding at close to 3 percent a year or 20-fold per century. In 5 of these 17 countries, women have on average more than six children each. In all but 6 of the top 20 failed states, at least 40 percent of the population is under 15, a demographic statistic that often signals future political instability” (p. 20). Here is an interesting observation of failed states:

States fail when national governments lose control of part or all of their territory and can no longer ensure the personal security of their people. When governments lose their monopoly on the power, the rule of law begins to disintegrate. When they can no longer provide basic services such as education, health care, and food security, they lose their legitimacy. A government in this position may no longer be able to collect enough revenue to finance effective governance. Societies can become so fragmented that they lack of the cohesion to make decisions. (Brown, 2009, p. 18)

Scholars further suggest that leadership decisions and leadership failure have a great deal to do with the failure of a state, ‘State failure is man-made, not merely accidental nor – fundamentally – caused geographically, environmentally, or externally. Leadership decisions and leadership failures have destroyed states and continue to weaken the fragile polities that operate on the cusp of failure’ (as cited in Bilgin & Morton, 2004, p. 171).

Before looking at a distinction between ‘rouge’ and ‘failed’ states, let us review Gros’ typology of dysfunctional states. Here are the types of dysfunctional states:

[Gros] identified five types of dysfunctional states: ‘anarchic’ states, such as Somalia, which lack a central government; ‘phantom’, or ‘mirage’, states, such as Congo (formerly Zaire), which exercise only a semblance of central authority and can manage just a few core tasks (such as protecting the president and his circle); ‘anemic’ states, which are enervated by an insurgency or where, as in Haiti, ‘the engines of modernity were never put in place’; ‘captured’ states, such as Rwanda, where a strong centralized authority has been taken over by an insecure elite that is primarily concerned with defending itself against rival elites; and ‘aborted’ states, such as Angola, which failed before they were ever consolidated. (as cited in Kraxberger, 2007, p.1058).

A distinction between ‘failed’ and ‘rouge’ state is subtle but profound. “One major difference is that whereas the notion of a ‘failed’ state refers to internal characteristics, ‘rogue’ states are labeled as such because of their (anti-Western) foreign policy outlook. Another crucial difference is that whereas ‘failed states’ are considered a cause for concern when they come closer to the brink of collapse (such as Somalia), ‘rogue’ states are viewed as directly threatening international order and stability (as with Iraq and North Korea)” (Bilgin & Morton, 2004, p. 170).

Finally, Jones (2008) cautions that there are flawed in the analysis, the categorization of the failed states, and the associated terminology that widely accepted in academic and by politicians. The notion of failed states appears to use in the characterization of specific conditions of crisis in the Third World. “Yet the analytical and explanatory basis of the concept is profoundly flawed. The use of such a category by politicians is not surprising; what is remarkable is the way this notion has been so readily absorbed in academic analysis with little concern or critical reflection” ( p. 181). The analysis of failed states has to encapsulate a historical context that gives rise to a nation’s current power structure and social condition.

…The significance of the ‘failed state’ discourse lies not simply in its lack of explanatory power. This discourse, in persistently mis-characterizing social conditions and mis-identifying their causes, serves to legitimize and reproduce the very imperial qualities of international order which lie at the heart of socalled ‘state failure’. It remains to highlight this ideological character of the ‘failed states’ discourse and its relationship to imperialism. (p. 197)

In closing, I am glad our discussion lands itself with this topic. The concept of failed states is important because it provides us a framework to evaluate a state of a nation. Where a nation is in the index has domestic and international implications. A nation not only can use the indicators as tools to design and to improve its domestic policies, but it can also use its position in the index to gage where it stands among international communities.

While scholars and analysts continue to debate the merit of the concept, the differences between the ‘well states’ and ‘failed states’ are real and drastic. For example, the holidays gave many in the well states (developed nations) a short break from work or from whatever they were doing to spend time with our love ones. Life is basically good. For many who live in what is deemed as failed states, the holidays were just ordinary days. The struggle to have basic needs continues; the thirst for freedom endures; and the resiliency to live with human dignity perseveres.

As time takes us to the beginning a new decade, the realization that all of us are getting older appears surreptitiously in our consciousness. My hope is that the Epiphany makes us wiser, encourages us to change our ways, and ushers us to a brand new direction-- a direction in which we are more reflective of our words and our deeds; we have more tolerance and understanding for each other; and we have the courage to look for common ground to work together regardless of our differences because the cost of repeating the past mistakes of not working together is far too great for all. On behalf of KI media team, Happy New Year to all Koun Khmers!!! This is my perspective; please share yours.

References

Bilgin, P., & Morton, A. (2004). From ‘Rogue’ to ‘Failed’ States? The Fallacy of Short-termism *. Politics, 24(3), 169-180.

Boas, M., & Jennings, K. (2007). 'Failed States' and 'State Failure': Threats or Opportunities?. Globalizations, 4(4), 475-485.

Brown, L. B. (2009). Plan B 4.0: mobilizing to save civilization. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company

Jones, B. (2008). The global political economy of social crisis: Towards a critique of the 'failed state' ideology. Review of International Political Economy, 15(2), 180-205.

Kraxberger, B. M. (2007). Failed states: temporary obstacles to democratic diffusion or fundamental holes in the world political map? Third World Quarterly, 28(6), 1055-1071.

Manjikian, M. (2008). Diagnosis, Intervention, and Cure: The Illness Narrative in the Discourse of the Failed State. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 33(3), 335-357.