Herbert Lewis, Guest Columnist
NOT SO long ago one of our prominent businessmen referred to Jamaica as a failed state. Since then, from time to time, we hear equally prominent and not so prominent individuals also refer to Jamaica as a failed state.
I recently asked a gentleman who had used the term to define for me, what he meant by the statement and all I got out of him in response was "you know darn well what I mean."
Well, I still have not been able to get a definition from him and I dare say that I don't believe that many who use the term really have a definition to offer.
In the post-Cold War era, it has become increasingly evident that one of the pressing challenges for the world community is that posed by so-called 'failed states'.
Many serious problems with highly significant intra- and international ramifications are laid at their door: savage, prolonged wars; global terrorism; persecution; organised crime; the spread of disease; the impoverishment of local populations; illegal immigration; widespread corruption; massive unemployment and illiteracy to name some of the most obvious.
If these are caused or at least exacerbated by the very existence of failed states by the fact that they have 'failed' then solving them requires us to confront them in their specific failings.
FINDING A DEFINITION
But at this point, the question naturally arises: What, exactly, are 'failed states'? Scholars of this phenomenon do not all seem to have the same thing in mind when using the term, since attempts to define it often seem to have little in common.
Many consist of little more than strings of examples, with no clear statement of principle to show what those examples are taken to have in common.
More theoretically-developed definitions are usually extremely brief, or assert principles which seem to lead to the conclusion only that a state has failed in certain respects, but not necessarily across the board.
It is, therefore, reasonable to ask: What concepts are behind these differing definitions? Again, could different concepts augment, improve, or even disqualify others? Is it reasonable to think that scholars could together develop an all-purpose concept?
Or are we forced to conclude that 'failed state' is irretrievable as an analytic and moral concept from the morass of ideological posturing?
In order to begin answering these (and many other) questions, I believe that it would make an interesting debate topic ('The idea of failed states') and wish to suggest to the University of The West Indies that they consider arranging this debate which should be of interest not only to students but to the wider public.
The treatment should be scholarly but as easily comprehensible as possible to those in the specific discipline. Overly technical language should be either avoided or, if unavoidable, clearly defined.
Questions which might be addressed include, but are by no means limited to the following:
1 Is the very idea of a failed state a sound one? That is, does it even make sense to describe any state as 'failed'?
This question might be approached by asking:
How can one distinguish a failed state from a successful one? What technical/functional and/or moral criteria might be used for this purpose?
Must a state 'fail' across the board to be a 'failed state', or is it sufficient to fail only in certain aspects of its functioning to pass the threshold of overall failure?
Is the notion of a 'failed state' relative in some way? For example, can a state which is deemed to be a failure in one cultural context be deemed to be successful (or at least not a (failure) in another?
Is state failure always absolute, or is it a matter of degree? That is, can one 'failed state' be a worse failure than another? And, if so, how does one tell which is which?
Is there any significant difference between a 'failed state' and a failing one?
2 Are there 'failed states' which have not so far been recognised as such, and what case can one make for classing them thus?
3. Can 'failed states' be turned into successful ones?
If so, are there any general strategies for doing this, or must such transformation be carried out on a case-by-case basis?
If 'failed states' cannot in principle be thus 'repaired', is there a case for 'liquidating' them?
If so, who should be the liquidator, and what happens to the 'assets'?
4 From the answers to the questions which can be asked about the concept of a 'failed state', what might be implied or inferred with respect to the nature, functions and responsibilities of the international order?
It is my hope that this article will result in some meaningful debate, if for no other reason than to educate ourselves so we do not use terms loosely, which has the potential to dash the hopes of our people. This is all about education.
Herbert Lewis is an industrial relations specialist and former president of the Jamaica Employers' Federation. He may be reached at herblewis@cwjamaica.com
