Are failed states temporary obstacles to democracy or long-term historical problems that cannot easily be solved? This paper from Third World Quarterly assesses four approaches to failed states with regard to the diffusion of democracy, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite interest in moving beyond the status quo approach to resuscitating failed states, there is powerful resistance to change. Diplomatic inertia plays a role in the failure to decertify failed states and recognise new territorial states. New diplomatic tools and a fresh interpretation of problem states are now required.
Democratic consolidation is influenced by a variety of factors, including economic development, political leadership and the attributes of formal institutions. The existence of an effective state is one essential ingredient that is lacking in some countries. In the current debate, four different approaches to engaging failed and collapsed states have emerged. The revivalist school is committed to resuscitating dysfunctional states and is currently the entrenched approach in official circles. The ‘shared sovereignty’ framework advocates various levels of quasi permanent intervention in difficult cases of state failure or collapse. Territorial restructuring of states calls for the recognition of de facto sovereignty and the restructuring of de jure international boundaries when necessary. The fourth and most controversial approach, which focuses on stateless zones and uncertainty, insists on a historically grounded analysis of modern statehood as a failed global project.
A number of strengths and weakness can be traced in the four approaches:
- The state revival strategy has been successful in countries with small territories although there is no consensus about how to reconstruct political institutions after state collapse.
- The shared sovereignty approach requires longer term external oversight, which can promote transparency in the management of natural resources and monetary policy and can lead to better development outcomes. However, this approach may not aid larger failed states. Furthermore, the decay of institutions in collapsed states undermines negotiated power-sharing agreements between local and external actors.
- Territorial restructuring of states involves giving juridical sovereignty to regions demonstrating empirical sovereignty, thereby supporting the emergence of new territorial entities. Altering the territorial status quo through creative diplomacy would entail significant risks. However, proponents argue that such risks may be worth taking.
- According to the fourth approach, the government in a failed state is often viewed as a threat to indigenous cultural identities. Collective governance may be desired but the modern state model may not be. Thus, it advocates a return to pre-colonial stateless zones, although it fails to adequately address the question of what should replace modern states in regions where they are ill-suited.
There is a pressing need for creative approaches to failed and collapsed states. Whether state failure will be a temporary roadblock to political liberalisation depends largely on the international context.
- Major powers have consistently opposed redrawing international boundaries.
- There have been more developments with regard to shared sovereignty arrangements but changes have been piecemeal and limited.
- Austere budgets and worries about neo-colonialism have been key factors limiting these quasi-permanent relationships.
