The Failed State Myth

CAREFUL research is a fundamental element of sound research. Even if a university faculty member or political commentator does not do original research he should at least read the available research findings related to his subject matter.

This is basic standard for all of us who are engaged in the business of knowledge production. Sadly, Guyana seems to have been left a little behind given what is regularly published in some newspapers.

Let us take the case of failed states. Despite hard empirical evidence to the contrary, propagandists in Guyana continue to peddle the argument that this country is a failed state. It is not really worthwhile refuting any specific published articles on the subject because they do not have the basic minimum of academic credibility to warrant such attention. Instead, it is more useful to take a look at the available research and simply report the findings.

Earlier this year ‘The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy Magazine’ released their research findings on failed states. Fund for Peace used one dozen indicators in its study. These indicators are: (1) demographic pressures; (2) refugees and IDPs; (3) group grievance; (4) human flight; (5) uneven economic development; (6) economic decline; (7) delegitimization of the state; (8) public services; (9) human rights; (10) security apparatus; (11) factionalized elites; and (12) external intervention.

The study assigned scores from 1-10 in each category, with 1 being the best score and 10 being the worst. As an illustration, Somalia received a 10 for the category “Security Apparatus” and Norway received a score of 1.1 in the same category. The scores obviously reflect the implosion of the security situation in Somalia on the one hand, and the absence of any meaningful security threat in Norway.

The scores for twelve categories were then tallied and a ‘Total’ was arrived at for each country. One hundred and seventy-seven (177) countries were studied. The Fund for Peace then used the ‘Total’ scores for each country and produced a ranking of the 177 countries.

Somalia with a total score of 114.7 is ranked No. 1 – that is, it is the worst of the 177 countries based on the indicators used and the methodology employed. Norway, with a score of 18.3 is ranked 177, meaning that it is a stable and secured state and society.

In the same study Guyana is ranked 104. Its total score for 2009 is 73.0. What do the ranking and total score actually mean? The only way to get something out of these otherwise nominal expressions is to compare Guyana with other states in the world, and especially with other states in the region.

Using these same expressions Guyana is in a better position than 103 countries including – Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Cuba, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, Mexico, and neighboring Suriname. Some countries immediately ahead (stronger than Guyana in the rankings and total scores) are Belize (111/69.5) Paraguay (106/72.0), Brazil (113/69.1), and Jamaica (117/68.6). Trinidad came in at 123 in the rankings with a score of 66.7.

Guyana is also ahead of some much larger countries such as Russia, China, India, and Turkey. The first three are nuclear powers, and the last is a member of NATO. India and China are also among the most successful economies in the world. These countries are noted here because one would not really associate them with weak states.

It should be clear that based on the Fund for Peace/Foreign Policy study, the argument that Guyana falls in the category of failed states is without merit.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.