The past two years have been filled with tragic stories of
death, mass destruction and civil war in Syria.
The ruthless dictator Bashar Al-Assad has refused to step down from
power despite protests and clashes between the Syrian military and rebel
civilians. Despite all of the terrible
events plaguing Syria for these past two years, Syria is not a failed state.
The Fragile
State Index uses twelve different criteria to compile a final score ranking how
failed a state may be. The main criteria
that Syria scored the highest on are refugees/IDP’s, group grievance, state
legitimacy, human rights, security apparatus, and fractionalized elites. However, they scored average scores on
demographic pressures, human flight/brain drain, uneven economic development,
poverty/economic decline and public services.
These high scores are every
indicator of civil war, as opposed to a failed state. These characteristics are expected to be high
when there is violent conflict in the state.
All these rankings do for Syria is reflect the fact that they are
currently in a civil war. A failed state
encompasses high scores in all different categories, such as social, economic
and political issues. States that aren’t
in civil war but are still considered to be failed states, such as the Congo
and Somalia, have high scores on all of these criteria. Syria, however, scores high on aspects
related to violent conflict. Their
economic growth, although not good, is not at the level of other seriously
failed states.
Scores on the Fragile State Index
can tell us a lot about a country. We
can learn about how effective the government is, certain social issues going on
in the state and how the economy is doing.
Each characteristic leads to a certain description of the state, such as
a failed state, a state in civil war, a state with a poor economy, a state with
no rule of law or a developing state. In
this scenario, based on the certain areas that Syria scored particularly high
on, I would classify Syria as a state in civil war as opposed to a failed
state.
Somalia, for example, had a lowest
individual criteria score of 8.4, meaning that every other criteria was above
that and as high as 10. Somalia’s score
shows a wide array of issues that prove that there is no sort of political
effectiveness. Having a low spread of
high scores shows that Somalia is truly a failed state. Syria, however, scores particularly high on
certain criteria that can lead us to conclude that the state is in civil war as
opposed to being a failed state. If we
were looking for a truly failed state, we would see a different pattern and
spread of scores on the Fragile State Index.
You could
say that a state in civil war is, by default, a failed state. There clearly is no internal legitimacy in
Syria, since a great deal of people want Assad to step down. However, there is still an internationally
recognized leader of Syria. He still
controls the military and represents the country on the international stage. In my opinion, a failed state is one that has
no internal or external legitimacy. A
political void, where there is an opportunity for anybody, any group or any
party to take power in a state is what determines a failed state. The government has thus become ineffective
and there is nobody that can take control of any government function. In the case of Syria, we don’t exactly see
that. Assad still has control of Syria’s
military and weapons arsenal, and nobody has the power to take his position in
government. In this sense, Syria is not
a failed state. Although a state in
civil war has similar characteristics to a failed state, there is a
distinguishable difference between the two, as evident by the Fragile State
Index.
Not
considering Syria a failed state does not diminish the atrocious violations of
human rights, poor economic conditions and lack of rule of law currently taking
place. Each country must objectively
look at any state in turmoil and evaluate foreign policy based on their individual
national interest, concerns regarding regional challenges and a host of other
issues that affect how an established state deals with a fragile state. Just because Syria is in civil war doesn’t
mean that it requires just as much international attention as a country such as
Somalia, which tops the Fragile State Index.
Despite the
turmoil plaguing Syria right now, the Fragile State Index would not classify it
a failed state. Although it scored
particularly high on certain aspects, it did not have the wide spread of scores
that a failed state would have. Syria’s
scores on the Fragile State Index are scores expected for a country going
through a civil war, which are similar to those of a failed state, but certainly
do have distinct differences.
Although I agree with the factual analysis made about the theoretical definition of a failed state, I disagree entirely with the disclaimer that an active civil war has no bearing on the rating it receives on the failed state index as well as the seriousness of the situation garnering political or military action. Factors such as brain drain and economic development should have no bearing when determining the state of a nation, whether it has failed or not, when an armed insurrection exists actively within its borders those factors are insignificant. I would even argue in the case of Syria, is there a true legitimate government left to actually tabulate a score for. The assumption made by tabulating a failed state score for the government, is that it will survive the conflict, and has the legitimacy to do so. Moreover, a state experiencing civil war automatically should be at the top of the list of failed states, and the failure of Syrian state with its political and geographic position in the world poses it as a much higher security risk to the world than a state such as Somalia.
ReplyDeleteI, along with Nick, disagree with Syria not being considered failed due to their current civil war. Due to the seriousness of the situation amongst Syria and their lack of political control causing other nations to intervene, Syria should be considered more of a failed state. I do believe the State Failed Index provides some great insight on what each state is ultimately dealing with, but I do not believe that this index promotes the most important factors such as state legitimacy and civil war. I do not believe economic development and poverty are severe as civil war and should not be compared at the same level. Thus, even though Syria is not listed as severely failed because of the factors being assessed on the index, does not mean it is not failed as much so as Somalia.
ReplyDeleteSyria’s scores on certain components of the Fragile State Index does show that the country is suffering a civil war. I personally believe that a civil war should not be excluded from determining a failed state. Assad is internationally recognized as the leader of Syria but that doesn’t necessarily mean that his government is legitimate. The people of Syria want Assad to step down from rule so there is no internal legitimacy. Assad lacks political control over Syria and that shows how the government has failed. Although, Syria ranks normally in certain areas in the Fragile State Index it does not necessarily prevent it from being a failed state. Syria is currently ranked number 15 on the index. Ultimately, Syria may end up as a failed state if nothing is done to end the civil war since they will just keep going up on the index.
ReplyDeleteIf we exclude the fact that Syria is dealing with a civil war, it would still qualify to be considered a failed or failing state.Syria's economy pre-civil war times did not translate to having a military strong enough to withstand a rebellion. Assad's regime has not translated to any stability. I agree that you must take into consideration that the state is in civil war but that does not excuse any pre-existing conditions that would classify Syria as a failed state, and it goes without saying that the current war is undoubtedly driving Syria to the failed state zone.
ReplyDelete