Recent events around the world, marked by the undermining of democracy, restriction of civil liberties, suppression of public opinion and denial of basic rights guaranteed by the United Nations and Geneva Conventions, have raised global concern. This calls for a closer examination of why some nations fail and remain perpetually poor and politically unstable. Signs of failing or falling states include weak central governments unable to control territory or provide services, economic decline, mass corruption, internal conflict, human rights abuses, displacement of populations, loss of public trust and breakdowns in infrastructure and trade—all eroding state legitimacy and security. A failed state is one that cannot fulfill fundamental security and development functions or maintain effective control over its territory, often resulting in corruption, criminality, population displacement and external interventions.
The term “failed state” originated in the 1990s, particularly in the context of Somalia’s turmoil after the overthrow of its dictator Siad Barre in 1991. The phrase gained prominence during the American-led intervention in Somalia in 1992. It was used to express concerns about the potential collapse of poor states into chaotic anarchy after the end of the Cold War, as highlighted by Robert Kaplan’s depiction of chaos in Liberia and Sierra Leone and his warning of a “coming anarchy” in various global regions.
According to the political theories of Max Weber, a state is defined as maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g. through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, corrupt policing, armed gangs or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious and the state becomes a failed state. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains “a monopoly on the legitimate use of force”, which includes the problems of the definition of “legitimate”, means it is not clear when a state can be said to have “failed”. The problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence. This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving a monopoly on having the means of violence (de facto), but will need one if it needs to use it (de jure).
Typically, the term means that this kind of state is rendered ineffective and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly or provide basic goods and services to its citizens. The conclusion that a state is failing or has failed can be drawn from the observation of a variety of characteristics and combinations thereof. Examples of such characteristics include, but are not limited to, the presence of an extreme political corruption, overwhelming crime rates suggestive of an incapacitated police force, an impenetrable and ineffective bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics and consolidation of power by regional actors.
A derived concept of “failed cities” has also been launched, based on the notion that while a state may function in general, polices at the sub-state level may collapse in terms of infrastructure, economy and social setup. Certain areas or cities may even fall outside state control, becoming a de facto ungoverned part of the state.
Labeling states like Somalia or Liberia as failed states gives Western countries the legitimization to impose the Western idea of a stable nation-state. It is commonly accepted that nation-building or international response to troubled/rogue states happens too late or too quickly, which is due to inadequate analysis or a lack of political will. Still, it is important to highlight that developed nations and their aid institutions have had a positive impact on many failed states. Nation-building is context-specific; thus, a country’s cultural-political and social environment needs to be carefully analyzed before intervening as a foreign state.
The Western world has increasingly become concerned about failed states and sees them as threats to security. The concept of the failed state is often used to defend policy interventions by the West. Further, as Chesterman and Ignatieff, argue, regarding the duration of international action by developed states and international organizations, a central problem is that a crisis tends to be focused on time, while the most essential work of reframing and building up a state and its institutions takes years or decades. Therefore, effective state-building is a slow process and suggesting otherwise to the notion that domestic public is disingenuous.
While failed states are the source of numerous refugees, the chaotic emigration allowed by UN regulations and open border policies has contributed to human capital flight or brain drain. Without sufficient professional and skilled workers, such as doctors, nurses, biologists, engineers, electricians and so on, the severity of failed states tends to increase, leading to even more emigration. Similarly, policies that do not require third country resettlement on the same continent as failed states make eventual resettlement after the war, famine or political collapse even less probable, as the distance, cost and inconvenience of returning to home countries increase with distance and language change among refugee families.
In Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen, the reform movements and modernization efforts are weakened as there are no effective refugee resettlement programs in place. In view of the above historical facts and analysis, those who run the governments and wield power need to prioritize civil liberties and efficient governance to pull the country out of labyrinth of chaos and dark future of their people.
—The writer is Former Civil Servant and Consultant (ILO) & International Organisation for Migration and author of seven books.
