Marx Weber, a famous German sociologist in his observation of the United States of America, gave a succinct definition of a state as a human community claiming the monopoly of legitimacy in the use of physical force in a given territory. As defined by Fukuyama (2004, p.21), state-building, therefore, entails the processes through which countries undergo, to bring into existence new institutions of their governments, of fortification of the states, if they existed before. Various countries worldwide have made efforts to create states, a trend which has seen some emerge successful, while others were failing in the process. The failure or success in state-building is attributable to various underlying factors within or outside a country, discussed hereafter.
Democracy stands out as the core pillar in state-building in any given country. The presence of strong democracy in a country brings about an active civil society which is usually strong in all aspects of state-building (Putnam, 1995). For instance, the prevailing state of democracy in the USA accounts for its success in state-building. Democracy is linked directly with strong civil societies, which triggers social modernization, a key ingredient for a successful and effective state-building process. Social modernization accounts for associations both intellectual and moral, which are both contributing factors to state-building, as observed by Tocqueville in his visit to America (Putnam, 1995).
Civil engagements are also directly linked with quality life in a country’s population, enhanced social and industrial performance, resulting in enhanced economic development, which is a compliment to the effective state-building process.
The capacity of a state to effectively administer and govern its state activities contributes to the success of state-building, as observed by Fukuyama (2004, p.21), as in the case of the American state. Such countries possess the capacity to enact statutes, frame policies, and executing them effectively, hence enhancing transparency and accountability of a government, a key ingredient in the building of an effective state (Fukuyama 2004, p.22).
A failed state is one characterized by conflicts, warring factions, and ineffective governments (Rortberg, 2002, p.85). Various obstacles have been pointed out as the stumbling blocks obscuring various failed states in the processes of building and reclamation of effective states’ status. Issues of poverty, drug trafficking, terrorism, AIDS, and weak, incompetent governments have been at the forefront in undermining the process of building effective states, particularly in developing countries (Fukayama, 2004. p.19).
The AIDS status in Africa, for instance, has claimed a substantial number of lives while weakening the remaining population. A lot of resources have been channeled to programs associated with the management of the pandemic. Such resources could be used in economic development, which is a key pillar in the process of state-building. This problem is intensified by the lack of governments’ capacity to fully manage the epidemic through their health systems.
Dwindling social and civil engagements and frameworks can be a factor behind a failing state. The decline in union membership in America accounts for the slowed state building for decades, particularly between 1975-1985 (Putnam, 1995).
Lack of state capacity affects the process of building an effective state in poor states as well as in other supporting states. For instance, the cold war left the Balkan states too weak, as the capacity of their state had considerably weakened. The condition in Somalia, Afghanistan, and other troubled states contributed to the weakening of the state’s capacity, which in turn led to the rise of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. The culmination of terrorism practices as exper4ienced in the September 11 attack on America brought in to limelight the challenges posed to well-off states by their weak compatriots.
The lack of effective governance and modernity by weak states enhances criminal activities and violence, which jeopardizes the progress of state-building globally, as its effects are felt either directly or indirectly by other states globally. The failed state of Zimbabwe in Africa as a result of poor governance is a goods example (Rortberg, 2002, p.87).
Moreover, the war in various regions stands out as a major cause of struggle or failure in state-building among countries. Africa and many other third-world countries cite a good example. War threatens both internal and external security within a region. The absence of security hinders all the economic, social, and political processes in a country, which are the main pillars that hold the process of state-building firmly. War weakens the state’s political consolidation, administrative structures, the execution of economic policies as well as the social connectedness and relationships among people. This is evident in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa (Herbst, 1990, p. 118 and Rortberg, 2002, p.93).
War hinders the development of Nationalism in countries. This is the relationship between a nation with its population. When the sense of Nationalism lacks among people, then mistrust between the two erodes, leading to interference in the process of state-building (Herbst, 1990, p. 122 and Rortberg, 2002, p.86). War coupled with poverty, the decline in economic productivity, and shortages of skilled manpower jeopardize the process of state-building in war-torn countries, a situation which is severer in Africa (Herbst, 1990, p. 122). Rortberg (2002, p.85) seconded Herbst in regard to the effect of war and violence in the process of nation-building.
Rortberg, 2002, p.94, and Friedman 2005 maintained that it was better to prevent a state from failing than reviving or reclaiming it after the failure. They pointed out that the establishment of a framework to address the issue of security was paramount, the establishment of legitimate judicial systems and restarting of the collapsed social institution especially in war shattered countries such as Afghanistan, as well as overseeing such countries with abundant human resource assistance.
Enhancing democracy to prevail in such states is the beginning of fostering an effective process of building and strengthening weak states. Through democracy, social organizations will be enhanced and strengthened, which in turn will facilitate effective communication, coordination as well as cooperation, which are preconditions for the establishment of a strong state economically, politically, and socially (Putnam, 1995). This will also enhance the prevalence of civil society as well as social engagements.
The growth of tertiary organizations such as Non-Governmental Organizations should be encouraged as a move to increase social connectedness among people, which is fundamental in state-building.
Responsible leadership and good governance should also be encouraged. External support, economically and financially, should be availed to help in the reconstruction and building of failed states (Rortberg, 2002, p.95-96).
Works Cited
- Rotberg, I. Robert. “The New Nature of Nation-State Failure.” The Washington Quarterly. 25:3 (2002): 85–96.
- Putnam, D. Robert. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy. 6.1 (1995): 65-78.
- Friedman, L. Thomas. “It’s a Flat World, After All.” The New York Times. 2005.
- Herbst, Jeffrey. “War and the State in Africa.” International Security. 14. 4. (1990): 117-139.
- Fukuyama, Francis. “The Imperative of State-Building.” Journal of Democracy 15. 2 (2004): 17-30.