How can development assistance be effectively carried out in weak or failed states? How can the legitimacy of state institutions be promoted in fragile states? This policy paper by the Development and Peace Foundation for the German Government addresses these questions and sets out some of the dilemmas and challenges facing external actors. The authors argue that the rigid concept of statehood needs to be rethought to include de facto states, and that an integrated approach to engagement is required that includes both security and development programmes.
Weak or failing states do not fit in with the concept of an international system based on well functioning sovereign states. However, fragile statehood is the international norm, not a deviation from this model. External involvement in fragile or collapsed states has been based around four strategies: non-engagement, attempts to exert influence and local pressure, the threat of coercive measures and the short term assumption of government functions.
Opportunities and constraints will always play a role in the decision to engage in fragile states. For example, colonial relationships, geographic proximity, geopolitical and economic interests are all influential. The question arises whether the international community could agree some objective criteria for influencing fragile states. Other defining issues are:
- In fragile states, the ‘state’ is not an equal partner with external actors. Approaches that focus on non-state actors can further weaken the state.
- In many countries there is an ‘oligopoly of violence’ rather than a ‘monopoly of power’. Security is often delivered outside the parameters of the state by many non-state actors, often with ambivalent images.
- Reinforcing one domain of the state may mean weakening another. Typically the security sector is reinforced first. This often results in abuses of power, leading to deeper problems in the mid to longer term.
- Decentralisation is generally seen positively in the public debate, as bringing government closer to the people. However, it can lay the foundation of state disintegration, especially if it is along ethnic lines.
Territorial integrity and state sovereignty are traditionally regarded as the pillars that enable secure and stable relations to be safeguarded in the international community. But this view does not recognise new realities, and the associated opportunities for action. De-legitimised states have no automatic right to be better funded than well-functioning equivalents that enjoy legitimacy. Donors need to develop strategies for time-bound cooperation with parastatal organisations. Policies based on human rights are essential to protect people from direct threats to their security. In addition:
- An integrated approach is required. While there is no development without security, it is equally true that there is no security without development, because structural problems must be addressed.
- Cooperation with non-state security providers should be considered but consequences must be carefully analysed. Cooperating partners need to be integrated into the state framework.
- Central government institutions need to be consolidated before embarking on decentralisation programmes, otherwise centrifugal forces that undermine the state may be strengthened.
- The spoiling capacities of elites need to be dealt with through incentive-based negotiation, socialisation or marginalisation and exclusion.
- Donors and NGOs should work with state structures and legitimate social institutions in providing services so that state credibility as well as capacity is built.
- There is a need for a more precise classification of the failing states phenomenon.
