Weak states and internal security

M Ali Siddiqi talks about a tricky scenario

With the development of globalisation it was expected that weak states and internal security would achieve the elusive goal of maintaining peace within their borders but it simply did not happen. In this context there is no evidence suggesting that wars within countries have become obsolete as there has been an average of twenty internal conflicts a year around the world since the end of the Cold War in 1989. Such conflicts range from secessionist movements to ethnic rivalries, parochial issues and socio-economic disparities. Moreover, some states are facing challenges from terrorist organizations, drug cartels and pirates whose goal is not so much a country of their own as the ability to ignore the respective governments and carry out activities that advance their own political or financial agendas.

Developments within countries can also pose a threat to world order. A lack of order can provide space for terrorists to train, prepare for and carry out their attacks. It can also create conditions where infectious diseases break out on their way to going global. Civil wars can generate large flows of refugees that can in turn cause instability in neighbouring countries. Internal instability within a given country can also be a magnet for regional and global powers that seek advantage in promoting a particular outcome. Although a good deal of history is the result of the behaviour of strong countries, it is clear, too, that weak, failing, and failed countries where governments are unable or unwilling to perform the tasks expected of them particularly maintaining internal security and this inability can cause serious problems for order beyond their borders.

Lack of internal stability is quite widespread and it is noted that almost 15 billion people inhabit states that are widely believed to be unstable. Though such states undertake all international requirements expected of a state but they fail to perform the basic duties of what specifically in respect of maintaining internal security, collecting adequate taxes, issuing and supporting a viable currency, building infrastructure, offering education, regulating food and product safety and providing health care. Weak states often lead to the emergence of large areas of territory that are outside the effective control of the government. It is pointed out that the characteristics distinguishing a weak state from a failed state are a matter of their levels with failed states simply describing a weak government that has lost control over most of its territory and stands little or no chance of regaining it.

It is often recognised that even an affluent region such as the Middle East faces violent internal conflicts involving a country’s own forces and this is precisely the reason that the region is described as a powder keg where large-scale violence can always erupt. This example proves that internal conflicts are far more common than conflicts between countries and tend to last longer and, after they conclude, are more likely to flare up again. It is essential here to distinguish between one country being in a position of relative weakness vis-à-vis another and a situation in which a country finds itself in a position of absolute weakness. What makes a country weak in absolute terms is its inability to control what takes place within its borders or to make available to its citizens what they require to lead a normal life.

Keeping in view this consideration it is pointed out that weak states are salvageable so long as they receive and make good use of some external assistance, while failed states would require enormous effort spanning years or even decades before they are able to effectively govern their territory. There are many countries, particularly Africa that have meagre chances of functioning as normal, functional states having the ability to have strong grip on its internal affairs. This apparently is the basic difficulty that is faced by the broader world and it tries to prevent occurrence of conflicts in unstable states but it usually fails to do so. This situation is highly dangerous as it is very combustible in content with hardly any mechanism to douse the flames of conflict. Somalia is the prototypical failed state with little chance of becoming a functioning country anytime soon and the same holds true for Yemen.

The lack of internal instability is mostly due to the lack a commitment to the rule of law and it is caused by corruption and misuse of governmental authority. Internal instability shuns investment in such countries that stymies economic growth. Weak states witness extreme discrimination usually blocking the way forward for honest and committed citizens that leads to poor national performance in vital socio-economic aspects. The citizens also suffer from lack of public services such as education, healthcare and mass transportation. The political situation in such countries is characterized by high concentrations of power in the hands of elites. Their governments usually lack overall legitimacy and their right to rule by a significant share of the population. Constitutions of such states are considered inadequate, and most of the times, they are not enforced.

Internal instability mostly arises out of profound economic disparities caused by endemic corruption and lack of equal opportunities for people. Government capacity is low, so taxes are rarely collected, and when they are, they are collected unevenly causing heartburn in relevant economic circles. Even the meagre taxes that are collected are not spent judiciously and equitably that not only deprives people but also badly injure national economies giving opportunities for eternal financial organisations to encroach upon the state sovereignty. The governmental decision makers are befuddled about policy matters and allow the affairs of the state to go adrift. Resultantly inequality is high and upward mobility is limited or nonexistent. The internal instability is perpetuated by the hold exercised by elites over the socio-political and economic affairs of weak states.

In such circumstances internal conflicts can break out for any number of reasons and every reason is sometimes quantified and sometimes not. Conflicts usually breed conflicts and it is difficult to pacify disputes between a minority or a political movement and the government but continuing in part because other governments intervene directly or indirectly on behalf of one or more of the protagonists. To further complicate the situation is the weak position of the state apparatus permitting many external actors to intervene in the internal affairs of a weak state thereby creating pockets of dissent that exacerbate internal stability. The lack of homogeneity in such states becomes an ideal format for giving rise to conflicts badly harming the domestic instability.

Weak states have a tendency to generate arbitrary decision making that try to keep them insulated from internal conflict but its very nature usually becomes the cause of conflict. The extremely low levels of intellectual perception contribute heavily to the causes of instability and it is very difficult to change the status quo adequately. Such states try hard to sell national assets to keep themselves afloat but losing national assets ultimately usurp their economic viability driving internal instability further. The solutions to such internal stability are myriad but the first point is to garner enough political and social will with the aim to facing all odds with maximum consensus of the polity. TW