Not a failed state!


Written by Sultan M. Hali • Cover Stories • October 2010

7-1 C. Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University and a visiting scholar at the Lahore University of Management Science, questions in her latest Op-Ed: ‘Is Pakistan a failed state?' and responds: ‘No.' The question, however, needs to be revisited in light of evidence available from Foreign Policy's annual Failed State Index, which lists Pakistan's position as "critical". In 2009-10, Pakistan ranks tenth, below several African countries, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and above Haiti, which has recently been devastated by an earthquake. Pakistan's problems are myriad and have been compounded by the war against terror, economic crunch and the recent deluge; however, cold statistics bring out the harsh reality. According to the UNDP, Pakistan ranks 141 among 182 states included in its Human Development Index. The Human Poverty Index ranks Pakistan 101 of 135. And the country has an abysmal track record at building the capacity of women, ranked at 152 of 155 countries assessed.

Sometimes statistical numerals don't provide the complete picture. To make a fair assessment, let us examine Pakistan's case ourselves, commencing with defining the term: "Failed State". In the absence of a clear cut universal definition of the term, we shall resort to Noam Chomsky's 2006 book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, in which the erudite scholar states that the term "failed state" is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state: Loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein; erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions; an inability to provide reasonable public services; and an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

Often a failed nation is characterized by social, political, and economic failure.

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline.

The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities. Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences. The Crisis States Research Centre defines a "failed state" as a condition of "state collapse" - i.e., a state that can no longer perform its basic security and development functions and that has no effective control over its territory and borders. A failed state is one that can no longer reproduce the conditions for its own existence.

Now let us take up the situation of Pakistan in light of various indicators like political, social and economic which determine a state's vulnerability. In the political sector, Pakistan has often been called a direct endorsement of the Army because in the past, democracy has many a time been hijacked by the Army. This does not hold true today because there is a political dispensation in place. In Pakistan's entire history, no democratically elected government served out its term, with the opposition urging the military to prorogue the parliament and call fresh elections, apart from the parliament elected in the 2002 elections under a military dictator General Musharraf, which did complete five years. The 2008 elections, despite problems with electoral rolls and threats from terrorist groups, were reasonably fair and peaceful, despite Taliban threats to disrupt the process. Smooth and democratic transfer of power brought President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani into office. Although Mr. Zardari is tainted with allegations of corruption, yet in April 2010, he signed the 18th Amendment which returned Pakistan to a parliamentary democracy in line with its 1973 Constitution, which is the yardstick for democratic legitimacy in Pakistan. However, owing to the lack of capacity and competence in Pakistan's political and civilian institutions, the Army continues to call the shots on foreign policy and national security in Pakistan. This is less an interference in the democratic setup and more a relegation of responsibility by the civilian government owing to its own inept attitude and lack of comprehension of the grave nature of the issues.

Some analysts opine that similar arrangement exists in other democratic countries too, where a vibrant and zealous military command tries to bull its own way with the support of its intelligence agencies. Such a situation has been observed in a strong democratic institution like the U.S. too, sometimes unsuccessfully (remember General Petraeus and a number of CIA Directors). However, two wrongs do not make a right. In order to call the shots in all aspects of governance, the current political dispensation in Pakistan must get its act together. At the moment it is embroiled in confrontations with the judiciary and a vivacious media, which is bent upon playing its role of a watchdog for society and pointing out the ills befalling it. In the past, Pakistan's Supreme Court used to validate the coup and the dictators' orders and even take an oath to support him. Those jurists who upheld their commitment to the Constitution were booted out and replaced with compliant judicial lackeys. This situation has been reversed. Following a showdown between the Supreme Court and then President General Pervez Musharraf over the dubious privatization of state assets at below-market prices to favored individuals and the court's insistence that the government produce "missing persons" captured or detained in the war on terror; the Supreme Court is no longer supine and has become an activist institution. Thus a vigilant Army, an independent judiciary and a watchful media are acting in the interest of Pakistan.

To borrow a phrase from Christine Fair, "Failed States Index is clearly only one side of the dice. While sitting at a computer crunching numbers, even with expert input as the index apparently uses, the larger story is missed. Pakistan has its problems and enormous challenges lay ahead, but it is far from a failed or even failing state." Thus Pakistan has its work cut out, whereas it needs to do more on capacity building of its democratic institutions, it needs to work hard on enhancing its image too. The world perceives Pakistan as a corrupt and inept state, derided by problems of governance, riddled with the lack of ability and the will to tackle terrorism but Pakistan has a story to tell, it has sacrificed more in its war to eradicate terrorism than all the allied forces put together. It has also achieved much more than NATO and its allies. These figures, the statistics of its losses and accomplishment need to be highlighted. The media must be utilized to portray a positive image of Pakistan, which is not a den of nepotism, corruption, extremism and terrorism. It is inhabited by people who are on the average, moderate, enlightened and balanced in their attitude and want to eradicate terrorism and reach their true potential. They should be recognized as such.