If you care what everyday Ugandans think of the failed state argument in their country (I can't imagine you do unless you live here), the article I wrote in the Independent can be accessed here:
http://www.independent.co.ug/column/comment/6790-the-failed-state-argument-?format=pdf
How can a country/region etc be called a failed state if it never was before? That is no slight to Uganda or your article which I think is very relevant from my limited point of view. How fair is it to call a post-colonial "state" a failure or inadequate while ignoring that it has been disenfranchised and has it ever really qualified as a "state" by Western standards? Thanks Cory-Aaron
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the argument, for any country regardless of history of independence, is completely arbitrary. In universal terms, there is no set definition, and the main argument around "failure" is the inability of a country to control/protect its borders. By that standard, the United States has a pretty abysmal year in 2001, and Israel is a failure every time a rocket launched from Gaza lands in their territory. If looked at specifically in Uganda, it's simply a matter of distinction that makes no difference in the reality of everyday life. You can call the country a success based on its HIV reduction, ousting of the LRA, etc. You can also look at Uganda's role in two horrible wars in DR Congo, rampant and violent homophobia, and high poverty and unemployment rates and call it a failure. Examples like this can be made for every country in the world, which makes the list, in my opinion, essentially baseless and useless.
ReplyDeleteTo their credit, Foreign Policy published a dissenting piece which can be found here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/29/failed_index