State failure is not new
Researchers recognise that state failure is not new. But it has become more dangerous than ever because such states threaten not only themselves but their neighbour and even global security. It is the threat to global security that forms the key element of the US administration's theory of its right to intervene with military might. Some view this approach as the way to global anarchy. Others view it as a reverse case of state failure for the US. This is discussed below.

A reverse state failure
Abid Ullah Jan, columnist for The Nation (Pakistan), convincingly argues that the US provides an example of a reverse state failure. Jan views this from both political and historical perspectives. From a political standpoint, US Congress "are approving shifts in the balance of power away from the legislature and the state agencies." As a result, Jan argues, the underlying principle of the Declaration of Independence, the inviolable right to liberty, has disappeared from the American political landscape. From the viewpoint of history, failed states were affected by "cold war which kept shallow-rooted regimes in power [that] destroyed traditional social structures but not long enough to replace them with viable constitutional structures."

The signposts of state failure
Globally, the signposts to state failure are several and they may vary across countries. These elements can be grouped into economic and political. The signposts in case of the first group include deterioration of living standards as political elite provides access to financial rewards to their kinsmen or small groups loyal to them, food and fuel scarcities, cutting down government expenditure on public good that adversely impacts on loss of entitlements for the citizens. There is also a rise in corruption that allows the ruling cadres to "skim the few resources available" and to stash away their ill-gotten gains in foreign banks that are hard to trace. The examples include Democratic Republic of Congo under Mobutu Sese Seko and Somalia under Mohammed Siad Barre. Citing these examples, Rotburg, columnist for Foreign Affairs, observes: "These rulers were personally greedy, but as predatory patrimonialists they also licensed and sponsored the avarice of others, thus preordaining the destruction of their states."

On the political side, it leads to tyranny in administration. Individual and political rights are trampled with impunity by using the coercive powers of the state to ensure staying in power. In this scenario, the concept of sovereignty of the state is merged and confused with personal autocratic rule rather than rule by consent. It is altogether forgotten that both the elements of power and consent are essential elements for state success. Absence of a balanced and unbiased attention to both the elements lead to supercessions of element of consent or tolerance by the element of power. It has to be recognised that ever increasing coercive powers of the state and its thoughtless application alone will not conduce to the growth and maintenance of a pluralistic political and social order. This also leads to the process of erosion of the capacity of the legitimate institutions of the state to maintain public order, ensure security of citizens that are vitally necessary for rapid economic and social development. The process of erosion of capacity eventually leads to complete collapse of the machineries of the state. Consequently, the ultimate outcome is a stateless society.

State failure vs government failure
There are many who argue that state failure and failure of the government are not synonymous. The point made is valid in its own right.

It should be distinctly understood, however, that continued failure of successive governments irrespective of their hue and colour definitely leads to a situation of failed state. It is from this perspective that the distinction between state failure and government failure should be viewed. Again, when governments fail to make a distinction between the authority of the state and the authority of the party in power, the symptoms of failed state appear which, unless reversed, inevitably sets in the process of sliding towards a failed state not merely of the government. The distinction thus is thin.

The distinction between failed state and stateless society

The distinction between a failed state and a stateless society is very thin indeed. If the signposts for a failed state already mentioned continue for a long time, the failed state graduates into a stateless society. It is in this context, that Benson of the Libertarian Foundation raises the question: Can a Stateless Society Survive? The tentative answers proposed by Benson are that (a) the internal institutions of governance in a stateless society are inherently stable and (b) historically stateless societies have been unable to stop invaders who then establish state institutions in the hope that the threat of invasion can be mitigated in the future. By institutions of governance in a stateless society, Benson meant 'ordered anarchy'. The second part of the answer provided clearly indicates the need to have rules and institutions of governance to ensure that competition for scarce resources do not take violent forms.

This, however, is more easily said than achieved. For capture of oil resources the American invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is a case in point. The US did it despite rules and institutions in the form of the UN charter and the UN itself. Saddam has been captured only to ignite strongest ever opposition to American Occupation of Iraq. US administration has acknowledged it to be a serious situation which is confirmed by offers for ceasefire and subsequent withdrawal from Fallujah.

Bangladesh case
In the recent past, there were a number of newspaper articles that tried to examine whether Bangladesh had become a failed state or was sliding towards the same. What do we find if we apply the signposts of a failed state mentioned earlier? First, deterioration in living standards. At this point of time, the evidence is not very strong if per capita food intake is taken into account. The per capita food intake was 886.2 grams in 1991-92.

It rose to 913.8 in 1995-96 and then fell to 893.1 in 2000 (BBS 2001). The official figures after 2000 are not yet published. This need not deter one from saying that inflation in 2002-03 had gone up to 5.2 percent while in 2000-2001 it was 1.6 percent.

In 2003-2004 it is believed to have risen higher. Food and fuel scarcities are occasional as have been demonstrated by the acute "Monga" situation in the northwest last year and fertilizer and the diesel scarcities for Boro farmers as reported in the newspapers. Cutting down expenditure on public good is foreseen in the announcement to spend on unproductive areas. Additionally, the government's Public Expenditure Review Commission, as reported in various newspapers, was very critical of public expenditure policy of the government. Corruption is endemic and needs no further elaboration as the Transparency International, Bangladesh (TIB) has shown. At the other end, the government despite its declared public policy pronouncements to put in place a non-partisan institutional framework to combat corruption, it is just beginning to be visible.

The government has explained the delay by saying that another law would need to be amended to make the commission fully operational. The reaction of TIB chief Khan Sarwar Murshid is relevant. Why could not government not think of it earlier? It will be relevant to mention that a Minister from Bangladesh declared the pledge to establish an independent and autonomous anti-corruption commission. This was done as part of the Anti-Corruption Action Plan For ASIA-PACIFIC in an international conference held in Tokyo on November 30, 2001.

On the political front, the trend of events tend to point out a bleak future verging on "ordered anarchy." This appears to be the case as demonstrated by the figures published by Odhikar, a coalition of human rights. Events of last April 2004 leading to mindless mass arrests have been condemned by many conscious citizens and organizations. More than the economic part, it is the individual and political rights that are matters of deep concern. Other recent events to silence voices of dissent are too well-known to be repeated. Freedom of speech, association, thought and conscience which are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, appear to be largely unavailable to the citizens, in particular to those with a voice of dissent. The height of intolerance rather than tolerance, total lack of respect for dissenting voices rather than attempt to secure consent or achieve accommodation appear to dominate the political scenario.

To top it all, a recent report in Time, republished in Prothom Alo, concluded that Bangladesh is the most ineffective of all states in the South Asian region. Some other newspapers have labeled it as an one-sided report calculated to undermine the image of the country. However, the facts as demonstrated by a continuing downturn in the stability-supporting role of the state speak louder than fiction. There is an urgent need to come to terms with reality. What the reality is has been amply demonstrated by independent studies and opinions of apolitical observers. One eminent civil society activist has rightly observed that there is a clear nexus among corruption, politics, and violence. This implies that the three elements mentioned above have a symbiotic relationship. This is perhaps one of the major areas of concern.

One such study is Human Security in Bangladesh: In Search of Justice and Human Dignity (UNDP, 2002). The discussion on this report was held by the Centre for Policy Dialogue. The conclusion drawn was:

"The overall picture painted is gloomy, as the report itself characterises ... the dominating public perception that remains today is one of widespread human security violations, especially against the poor and the disadvantaged, and an inefficient, complex and corrupt criminal justice system operating in an anti-poor environment. ... however, what is also evident in the report and emerged in numerous interviews is the existence of many determined individuals and organizations that are fighting every day to change the situation."

What needs to be done?
The signposts to a failed state vary from country to country. One only hopes that voices of reason will prevail over acts of wanton violence to prevent the slide towards Bangladesh becoming a failed state. The citizens of Bangladesh need not worry so much about the reverse state failure as Abid Ullah Jan has cited in the case of the US.

AMM Shawkat Ali is a former Agriculture Secretary.