Have some people given up?

The beginning
The notion of failed state came to the fore after the end of the Cold War in the early nineties. It made its first appearance in Western capitals and think-tanks. Markets and resources replaced ideology and nationalism.

Fundamental questions were asked. What is a nation state? Why do we need it? How do we know if it is doing its job?

During the Cold War, some wily leaders of the little countries tried to play one superpower against another, and even changed sides.

It takes two to tango. No good when there is only one superpower (or hyperpower). These nations lost their bargaining power in the nineties. It was time to play hardball.

Notionally, an ambassador could ask the Foreign Minister of State X: "We are pumping in millions in aid. So why are you failing? What are you going about it? Or do you want us to step in and help? Perhaps we could start with your police force ……….."

What is a failed state?
A state has its own job description. It is meant to provide certain things for the people within its borders. We expect government to ensure security -- the armed forces defending us against invaders and the police catching criminals, allowing us to get on with our lives in reasonable safety. Lawyers are meant to uphold the rule of law, ensuring that justice is dispensed. The state must ensure that basic services are given to its people. Education and schooling. Health care. Roads must be built and maintained. Bridges and railways too. Ports must function so that exports can be shipped out to earn hard currency. Vital imports such as oil, machinery and food must be able to come in too. Industries, markets and homes must get electricity, gas and water. The telephone system has to work -- people need to communicate internally and with the outside world. They need to have faith in the currency so that there is no need for barter.

If the state is unable to provide these services (or set "enablers" for provision) on a dependable and continuous basis, we could say that it is failing in its duty. Non-compliance. Depending on our foreign policy agenda, we could term the state 'weak', 'troubled', 'fragile', or 'failing'. Choosing the right adjective is an art.

If the system breaks down completely, it will be deemed to have failed. Ergo. Failed state.

Calling a state 'fragile' reminds one of 'humpty-dumpty' falling off a wall. Who then picks up the pieces and puts them together? In the world of failed states, there is 'life after death'. Reconstruction and rebirth are essential parts of the story. 'Appropriate' forces are found to guide what remains of the state back into the welcoming arms of the 'community of nations'.

The reasoning is grounded in Western, liberal thinking. Democracy is a given, though sometimes it can be waived. We don't however compromise on the role of markets.

How are failing states identified?
The Central Intelligence Agency is reputed to have a 'State Failure Task Force'. This task force reckons it has a 2 in 3 chance of predicting if a state is going to fail or not. There are many institutions around the world doing the same kind of work. They use models and simulations using indicators such as migration, human rights, regime stability, investment and trade restrictions, genocide, non-violent protest, natural disasters etc... These are broken down into sub-categories, scored and analysed. It's a whole new branch of social science!

Which states have failed or are failing?
This very much depends on who is asking the question. It is widely assumed that Haiti, Somalia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia have definitely failed. Colombia is sometimes included too. Nepal is plainly about to fail any moment. Afghanistan failed long ago. The Philippines and Indonesia are whispered to be failing -- the recent election of an ex-General might mean that Indonesia is now taken out of this class. In Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast are failing. Because we are dealing with people and cultures, there are no certainties.

Which states are weak?
In Asia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji and most of Central Asia. Pakistan flips in and out of 'weak' and 'failing'; depending on how much they are needed. Georgia, Moldova and Belarus. In Africa, nine countries including oil giant Nigeria are considered so. Add five from Latin America.

What about Bangladesh?
Surely we must have been tossed in to the weak camp at best, or 'failing' at worst. Has the state succeeded in providing the goods for the people? It is a disgrace how the ruling elites have squandered the aid money since liberation, like many a West African republic. Have we not failed to create a sustainable rural economy? Have we not failed in educating our people so that they can work for better wages in a competitive world? Have we not failed in that our majority live without basic health care or housing? What can we say about a situation that seems to so close to anarchy and disorder?

We have to make the distinction between whether governments are failing in their duty and whether a state is failing. Taking wrongly, we can draw the most unfortunate of conclusions. No one seriously thinks that Bangladesh is a failed state. Nor is it a failing state. It is a viable state with a right and logic to exist.

Nevertheless, it is a state, progressively being made weaker by an inept governing class, across the board. It has entered a period in its history where the process could conceivably lead to a loss of cohesion. There are visible signs that the state does not have real authority in some remote areas. A state has to be seen to project power in all corners of the land. Moreover, some of the big NGOs seem to be acting like some form of authority, delivering services such as health and education. The government has been bypassed. This is not a good sign, even though many NGO workers are doing a good job.

Fear of intervention
This is the great unknown. We should have a look at where there has been 'intervention'. It has happened in both failing and failed states. Some more (North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe) are about to. Georgia seems to have seen some subtle intervention in its 'popular' change of regime -- with many a party interested in its gas pipeline. As regards Bangladesh, the conspiracy theory view can even see the 7th Fleet steaming up the Bay of Bengal, landing 50,000 troops in Cox's Bazar and driving north. I do not agree. They are all in Iraq, on their way to Iran! South Asia would have to deteriorate a lot more. If there were a future conflict between India and Pakistan, a nuclear conflagration or if Pakistan imploded in civil war, we might have to revisit this one. Regardless that it is unlikely to be policy, the costs would outweigh the benefits and is not therefore a probable scenario.

So where could this much talked-about intervention come from? India is the favourite bete-noire and it's not even coming from us. This view is being trotted out by some of their own media and influential think-tanks. The excuse usually consists of one or all of the following: a possible jump in cross border migration by our poor in search of jobs, an oppressed Hindu minority, support for insurgents or Talibanisation.

This could be described as sabre-rattling by some members of a short-sighted establishment. The Indian state is shifting helicopters, ammunition and more to a beleaguered Nepalese monarchy. They are more likely to be worried about the impact of a successful Nepali Maoist revolution and the ripple effect to the Indian People's War Group and ULFA. They have their hands full. One would like to think there are a lot of sane, forward thinking influential Indians too. Progressive groups are neither silent nor powerless. Hindutva fascism has not conquered all.

Have some people given up?
One wonders whether some people have taken a long, hard look at Bangladesh and concluded that it will not survive. In their view, it has not managed to take off and looks like a liability. Perhaps they feel that no one can 'control' a population, soon to be 200 million or a capital mega city of 20 million with a 'fragile' economic base. In the medium-term, climate change will hit us the hardest, potentially forcing mass migration (to where else?)

We will know we are in trouble when enough of our own elite also come to the same view. One suspects that some have already have begun thinking in this way.

This discourse is dangerous because it can be pulled this way and that way, according to one's wish. The country does have a future. It does not look bright today because it is ill-served by a rapacious elite. But if we could only get some of the basics right, it could go a long way. Some states in Asia were in a worse position than us and are now on the road to prosperity.

In the dark world of intervention there are those who believe that redrawing the map and disregarding sovereignty is the imperative. That resources can be secured. That 'development' is actually the problem because it raises expectations that cannot possibly be met.

We are right to take the subject of 'failed state' seriously. We can use this as an opportunity to take stock and change course. We have to educate ourselves as to how a state should function. Raising our people's expectations is exactly what we should be doing.

Farid Bakht is a founder member of Futurebangla.