The dilemma of the failed state thesis in post-9/11 world affairs

 

Die dilemma van die mislukte staattesis in internasionale verhoudings na 9/11

 

 

A. Schoeman

Department of Political Science, University of the Free State, Qwaqwa Campus, Phuthaditjhaba. E-mail: schoemanpa@qwa.ufs.ac.za

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

The 9/11 terrorist attacks shifted the emphasis of failed states as just a regional humanitarian problem to one that could present a global security threat. In this regard US policymakers, especially, identified failed states as possible terrorist threats. However, this renewed attention to the study of state failure has exposed a number of theoretical weaknesses in this body of literature. The latter could mainly be ascribed to the way in which US policy makers have often used generalised definitions of failed states and then applied it to states that are perceived as threats. Another problem is the fact that government sponsored research institutes and think tanks are operating independently from university academics. This situation has caused theoretical confusion as conditions in failed states are often interpreted differently resulting in the development of a number of opposing theories, definitions and confusing classification models. The body of literature is further accused of endorsing a "Weberian" definition (ideal type) of the state against which degrees of "failure" in non-complying states are measured. This article will investigate the extent of these theoretical weaknesses and expose the dangers of following an approach that seem to misinterpret the political realities of developing states (often regarded as failed) - this despite having an extensive popular following. It will further focus on possible alternative approaches - or the formulation of ideas that are better suited and relevant to the often unique internal political, social and economic dynamics of unstable states.

Key concepts: failed state thesis; failed states: terrorist threat; liberal-democratic regime; Weberian ideal type state

---

OPSOMMING

Die 9/11-terroriste aanvalle het die fokus van mislukte state as bloot streeksgebonde humanitêre probleme verskuif na een wat 'n globale sekuriteitsrisiko kan inhou. Veral Amerikaanse beleidmakers het mislukte state ná hierdie insident as potensiële terroristebedreigings begin identifiseer. Die hernude belangstelling in die studie van mislukte state het egter ook 'n aantal teoretiese tekortkomings binne hierdie studieterrein blootgelê. Laasgenoemde kan toegeskryf word aan die wyse waarop veral Amerikaanse beleidmakers dikwels veralgemeende definisies van mislukte state gebruik en dit dan toepas op state wat as "misluk" beskou word. 'n Verdere probleem is die feit dat regeringsgefinansierde navorsingsinstitute en dinkskrums dikwels onafhanklik van akademici by universiteite funksioneer. Hierdie stand van sake lei tot teoretiese verwardheid, aangesien toestande in mislukte state dikwels verskillend geïnterpreteer word. Die gevolg hiervan is dat teenstrydige teorieë, definisies en klassifikasiemodelle dikwels ontwikkel word. Die studieterrein word verder daarvan beskuldig dat dit 'n "Weberiaanse" (ideaaltipiese) definisie van die staat onderskryf om verskillende grade van mislukking by nie-toegeeflike state te bepaal. Hierdie artikel sal poog om die omvang van hierdie teoretiese tekortkomings te ondersoek en te fokus op die gevare van 'n benadering wat oënskynlik die politieke realiteite binne ontwikkelende state (wat dikwels as misluk beskou word) misinterpreteer. Ten slotte sal aandag geskenk word aan moontlike alternatiewe benaderings, of die formulering van idees wat meer relevant en toepaslik is vir die dikwels unieke interne politieke, sosiale en ekonomiese dinamika van onstabiele state.

Kernbegrippe: liberaal-demokratiese regime; mislukte staattesis; mislukte state: terroriste bedreiging; Weberiaanse ideaaltipiese staat

---

 

 

Full text available only in PDF format.

 

 

List of references

BILGIN, P. & MORTON, A.D. 2002. Historicising representations of "failed states": beyond the cold-war annexation of the social sciences? Third world quarterly, 23(1):55-80.         [ Links ]

BRATTON, M. & VAN DE WALLE, N. 1997. Democratic experiments in Africa: regime transitions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]

CALL, C.T. 2006. The fallacy of the failed state. Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.         [ Links ]

DEMETRIOU, S. 2003. Rising from the ashes? The difficult (re)birth of the Georgian State. (In Milliken, J., ed. State failure, collapse & reconstruction. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 105-129.         [ Links ])

DOLEK, C. 2005. The myth of "failed state" in Africa: a question on atomistic social ontology? http://www.turkishweekly.net/printerfriendly/ printerfriendly.php?type=comments&id=2887 Date of access: 8 Jul. 2008.         [ Links ]

DOORNBOS, M. 2002. State collapse and fresh starts: some critical reflections. Development and change, 33(5):797-815.         [ Links ]

DU TOIT, P. 1995. State building & democracy in Southern Africa: a comparative study of Botswana, South Africa and Botswana. Pretoria: HSRC.         [ Links ]

DUNLAP, B.N. 2007. State failure and the use of force in the age of global terror. http://www.bc.edu/schools/law//lawreviews/metaelements /journals/bciclr/27_2/09_TXT.htm Date of access: 19 Jul. 2009.         [ Links ]

ERIKSEN, S.S. 2006. The theory of failure and the failure of theory: "state failure" in theory and practice. Paper presented at a Conference of the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs held in Oslo, Norway.         [ Links ]

FAILED STATE INDEX. 2008. Foreign policy, (167):64-68.         [ Links ]

FROST, M. 1997. What is Politics? (In Johnson, A., Christie, K., Frost, M. & Grest, J., eds. Politics: a beginners text. Cape Town: Juta. p. 1-18.         [ Links ])

GELDENHUYS, D. 1999. Staatsverval. Politeia, 18(2):37-54.         [ Links ]

GOUREVITCH, A. 2005. The myth of the failed state. Paper prepared for a conference of the International Studies Association. New York: Columbia University.         [ Links ]

GROS, J.G. 1996. Towards a taxonomy of failed states in the new world order: decaying Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda and Hiati. Third world quarterly, 17(3):455-471.         [ Links ]

HAMEIRI, S. 2007. Failed states or failed paradigm? State capacity and the limits of institutionalism. Journal of international relations and development, 10(2):122-149.         [ Links ]

HELMAN, G.B. & RATNER, S.R. 1993. Saving failed states. Foreign policy, (89):3-20.         [ Links ]

HERBST, J. 2000. States and power in Africa: comparative lessons in authority and control. Princeton: Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

HEYWOOD, A. 2002. Politics. Houndsmills: Macmillan.         [ Links ]

HILL, J. 2004. Challenging the failed state thesis. The Centre for International Politics Working Paper. Manchester: University of Manchester.         [ Links ]

HILL, J. 2005. Beyond the other? A postcolonial critique of the failed state thesis. African identities, 3(2):139-154.         [ Links ]

JACKSON, R. 2000. The global govenant: human conduct in a world of states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

JACKSON, R.H. 1990. Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations and the third world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]

JACKSON, R.H. & ROSBERG, C.G. 1982. Why Africa's weak states persist: the empirical and juridical in statehood. World politics, 35(1):1-24.         [ Links ]

JACKSON, R.J. & JACKSON, D. 1997. A comparative introduction to political science. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.         [ Links ]

KAPLAN, R. 1994. The coming anarchy: how scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of our planet. The Atlantic monthly, 273:44-65, Feb.         [ Links ]

KRASKA, J. & WILSON, B. 2008/2009. Fighting pirates: the pen and the sword. World policy journal, 25(4):41 -52.         [ Links ]

LOGAN, J. & PREBLE, C. 2006. Failed states and flawed logic: the case against a standing nation-building office. Washington DC.: Cato Institute. (Policy analysis, No. 560.         [ Links ])

MIGDAL, J.S. 1988. Strong societies and weak states: state society relations and state capabilities in the third world. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

MILLIKEN, J. & KRAUSE, K. 2003. State failure, state collapse, and state reconstruction: concepts, lessons and strategies. (In Milliken, J., ed. State failure, collapse & reconstruction. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 1-21.         [ Links ])

MILLS, G. 2004. Africa's new strategic significance. The Washington quarterly, 27(4):157-169.         [ Links ]

PATRICK, S. 2006. Weak states and global threats: fact or fiction? The Washington quarterly, 29(2):27-53.         [ Links ]

RAEYMAEKERS, T. 2005. Collapse or order? Questioning state collapse in Africa. Brighton: University of Sussex. (HiCN Working Paper, 10.         [ Links ])

RICE, S.E. 2003. The new national security strategy: focus on failed states. Washington: The Brooking Institution. (Policy Brief, 116.         [ Links ])

ROTBERG, R.I. 2002. The new nature of nation-state failure. The Washington quarterly, 25(3):85-96.         [ Links ]

ROTBERG, R.I. 2003. Failed states, collapsed states, weak states: causes and indicators. (In Rotberg, R.I., ed. State failure and state weakness in a time of terror. Cambridge: World Peace Foundation. p. 1-25.         [ Links ])

ROTBERG, R.I. 2004. When states fail: causes and consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

SCHOLTE, J.A. 1999. The globalization of world politics. (In Baylis, J. & Smith, S., eds. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 13-30.         [ Links ])

SCHUMPETER, J.A. 1947. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper.         [ Links ]

SPEISER, D. & HANDY, P.S. 2005. The state, its failure and external intervention in Africa. Warwick: University of Warwick. (Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. Working Paper, No. 175/05.         [ Links ])

SUR, S. 2005. On "failed states" http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/0502-SUR-GB.pdf Date of access: 18 Jun. 2006.         [ Links ]

TAKEYH, R. & GVODSEV, N. 2003. Do terrorist networks need a home? (In Lennon, A.T.J., ed. The battle for hearts and minds: using soft power to undermine terrorist networks. Cambridge: MIT. p. 96.         [ Links ])

VINCENT, A. 2004. Conceptions of the state. (In Hawkesworth, M. & Kogan, M., eds. Encyclopedia of government and politics. Vol. 1. London: Routledge. p. 39-53.         [ Links ])

VON HIPPEL, K. 2002. The roots of terrorism: probing the myths. The political quarterly, 73(1):25-39.         [ Links ]

WESLEY-SMITH, T. 2004. Reinventing government: the politics of state failure and regional intervention in the pacific. Paper presented at a conference of the Regional Forum on Reinventing Government in the Pacific Islands, held in Apia, Samoa.         [ Links ]

WILLIAMS, P.D. 2007. State failure in Africa: causes, consequences and responses: Africa South of the Sahara. London: Routledge. (Europe World Yearbook.         [ Links ])

WISE, W.M. 2004. American perspectives on the threat posed by weak and failing Asian states. Paper presented at the US-China Conference on Areas of Instability and Emerging Threats.         [ Links ]

WOODWARD, S.L. 2004. Fragile states: exploring the concept. Paper presented at the States and Security Learning Group at the Peace and Social Justice Meeting of the Ford Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.         [ Links ]

ZARTMAN, I.W. 1995. Introduction: posing the problem of state collapse. (In Zartman, I.W., ed. Collapsed states: the disintegration and restoration of legitimate authority. Boulder: Rienner. p. 1-11.         [ Links ])