Exploring the failed state

Written by Edwin Madunagu

NIGER Delta rebellion, Boko Haram insurrection, mass poverty and alienation, armed robbery and kidnapping, state robbery and corruption, high-profile election rigging, institutionalised anarchy, industrial unrest, violent cultism, state delinquency, etc, etc. All these maladies - and many more - have led some people to suggest that Nigeria has become a "failed state", or a "failing state".

An essay I have just obtained from the internet defines a failed state as a state "that can no longer perform its basic security and development functions and that has no effective control over its territory and borders"; it is a state "that can no longer reproduce the conditions for its own existence". The essay then provides a number of explanatory notes: the opposite of a "failed state" is an "enduring state", but the absolute dividing line between these two conditions is difficult to ascertain at the margins - for "even in a failed state, some elements of the state, such as local state organisations, might continue to exist". The essay avoids defining the state - an exercise that can be very contentious. Rather, it provides some assistance to those who may be interested in the exercise. The essay's main concern is the exploration of a state that has failed, or is failing.

Still avoiding a technical definition of the state, we may however go around the problem by considering the central element of the definition of a failed state, namely, the "functions" of the state. This exercise has been performed several times in this column, but it is obligatory to repeat it here. The functions of the state can be separated into three broad groups, namely: coercive functions, ideological functions and social-economic functions. The group of coercive functions is what has been described in the essay under review as "security" functions. But we prefer to call a spade a spade: "security", as employed in the definition, is the use of force.

Let me quickly add here that we, the citizens, all need security and the state claims that it is concerned with security and is, in fact, often seen providing it, or trying to provide it. But there is an "optical illusion" here. The point I wish to make is that the security functions of the state are designed and carried out in a manner that shows very clearly that the main concern of the state is not the citizens but the social order and the classes and blocs that are ruling. The state provides security for the citizens only for the same reason that it provides means of livelihood, or permits or supports the provision of means of livelihood, for the citizens: the citizens must survive for the state to continue to exist.

Put differently, the state provides security to the social order and the ruling social classes and blocs for the status-quo to remain and be strengthened, while it provides security for the citizens at large (the "common" people) so that the latter can continue to serve the social order and the ruling classes and blocs. The former concern is maximum, while the latter is minimal. The coercive functions of the state - which the essay under review calls "security" - are primarily aimed at preventing or discouraging any threat to the social order. That is why - as some analysts have already observed - the Nigerian state confronted the Boko Haram insurrection with maximum ferocity.

We may introduce the ideological functions of the state with a passage which I took from Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism. Here, Mandel remarks that "it was Napoleon, an expert in the matter, who coined the adage that one can do anything with bayonets except sit on them". What Napolepon, a military genius, meant here was that force could not achieve everything. Another author remarked that if the ruling classes used only coercive methods to maintain their power, then society would be perpetually in tumult. The state needs ideological weapons as well as coercive (or repressive) weapons to maintain and reproduce its power. By ideological weapons or apparatuses I mean ideas and the institutions that systematically disseminate them: schools, religious doctrines and institutions, political parties and social movements, cultural and traditional institutions and practices etc, etc.

Just as the state is not repression alone, it is also not (repression plus ideology) alone. The third group of functions (of the state) is social-economic. The state has to provide "those general conditions of production which cannot be assured by the private activities of the members of the dominant class", as Mandel put it. Even the fanatical "apostles" of privatisation in our country would agree that the ruling classes and blocs cannot privatise everything: roads, telecommunications, electricity, schools, industries, air transportations, etc., and still remain in power. The competition between the various fractions and individuals, and the extreme selfishness of most of them, will tear the state apart or grind it to a halt.

Even if you theoretically construct a state that divests itself of all social-economic undertakings you will need a state institution - a big and powerful one - to coordinate the activities of the most strategic of them or act as their "overlord" - in the interest of the ruling classes and blocs as a whole. The current global financial crisis and recession and the interventionist responses of various governments attest to this. We are then back to the starting point, namely, that the state provides those social and economic "conditions" of production that the members of the ruling classes and blocs cannot, acting as individuals, provide.

The internet essay under review recognises that if there is the concept of "failed state" and the concept of "enduring state", then there ought to be the concept of "failing state", that is, a state that is "becoming" failed, or a state that is neither a filed state nor an enduring one. This last concept, "neither failed nor enduring" state, happens to be the most important. If we dismiss tautological definitions such as "a failing state is a state that is failing", it becomes necessary to construct a scale for determining the location of any state in the advance to failure.

The internet essay does exactly this. Twelve indicators are provided to determine the location of any state. Four of the indicators are social, two economic, and six political. The social indicators are given as: demographic pressures; massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples; legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance; and chronic and sustained human flight. The economic indicators are: uneven economic development along group lines; and sharp and /or severe economic decline. The six political indicators are: criminalisation and/delegitimisation of the state; progressive deterioration of public services; widespread violation of human rights; security apparatus as "state within a state"; rise of factionalised elite; and intervention of other states or external factors. The indicators are elastic enough to cover all known state maladies.

Employing these indicators, one may ask: Is Nigeria a failed state? I shall preface the answer to this question with further comments and observations on the essay under review. First, I think that "failed" is being confused with "delinquent" where "delinquency" is measured by the degree to which the state does not satisfy the ordinary (basic) existential needs of the people. When the "delinquency" element is removed from the definition of a "failed state" what we have left in that definition is a state's inability to be a de facto effective ruler of the whole polity - by coercive means, however concealed or mediated. The connection between the two categories - "delinquent" and "failed" - is that a delinquent state usually tends to a failed state because a delinquent state ultimately invites rebellions, insurrections, anarchy, "states within a state", revolutions, etc.

Secondly, the state is always a class state. There is no "state of the whole people". A state that is becoming a state of the whole people would have started to transform its character as a state; it would have started shedding some features of the state. Strictly speaking, it is illogical to use such terms as "the state is expected to..." or "the state ought to...", because the state is, and has always been essentially, a class weapon. The basic function of the state is not the satisfaction of people's needs. No. The state meets the basic existential needs of the people only to the extent that this allows it to continue to rule and protect the social order and the dominant classes and blocs, or because it is compelled to do so by the dominated classes and groups - through struggle, of course.

The last point can be put differently. The "performance" of the state is a statement about the state of class and popular struggles. In all these we should remember that there are inter-class and intra-class struggles, as well as struggles within the state itself. So, is Nigeria a failed state? My answer is that, with the distinction that we have made between a failed state and a delinquent state, and if we dismiss all illusion concerning the functions of the state, then Nigeria is not a failed state - even with MEND, Boko Haram, OPC, etc. At least not yet. The Nigerian state is still in full control. But Nigerian state is a delinquent state.

(culled from www.nigerialog.com/the Nigerian Guardian, Thursday 3 September 2009)

A weak state‘s response to Yar‘Adua‘s AWOL

Written by The Punch/Adebolu Arowolo.

For those who often contest the ranking of Nigeria among weak, poorly governed and distressed nations of the world, the response of the various institutions of government to President Umaru Yar‘Adua‘s protracted absence without official leave (AWOL) should serve as an eye opener. They should now begin to see Nigeria as a nation that requires to be salvaged from the stranglehold of a few people who have effectively hijacked the apparatus and resources of the state to serve parochial interests. Look at the way a clique has deployed state powers to further private and sectional political interests since Yar‘Adua left the country for Saudi Arabia about eight weeks ago.

Using religion effectively as the opium of the people, the cabal started by telling the people not to worry about the yawning power vacuum created by Yar‘Adua‘s absence, but that they should instead go into prayer sessions and vigil for His Excellency‘s good health. Nobody knows how much of public fund was frittered in this evil attempt to buy time and divert attention from official paralysis imposed by Yar‘Adua‘s absence. They were deceitfully using the prayer sessions as a way of escaping from doing the right thing.

As various groups of prayer warriors were being mobilised to Abuja, the office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice moved immediately to handle the legal aspects of the logjam, making statements that conflict with commonsense and the people‘s interest. For Mr. Aondoakaa, the President could stay outside the country and rule indefinitely from any part of the world. He could set up a new desk in his clinic and relocate the nation‘s headquarters from Abuja to Jeddah or anywhere on the face of the earth. Those who expressed views contrary to Aondoakaa‘s curious stand were dismissed as unpatriotic elements. And as if to prove his point, the 2009 Supplementary Appropriation Bill was taken to Jeddah for the President‘s signature. That only hinted Nigerians that the Presidency had gone offshore and that it might take sometime for Yar’Adua to return home.

Now, more and more crucial state institutions are being sucked into the plot and compromised. We have all heard the case of an Abuja High Court where hearing and judgment were concluded within a record time of three days in favour of a clique that does not want Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan to fully exercise the power of the President. Just like the satanic judgment procured one midnight in 1993 from Bassey Ikpeme‘s court to scuttle a free and pro-people election, the Dan Abutu judgment, which says Jonathan can perform the duties of the President without formally assuming power as Acting President, seems to me like a judicial endorsement of Aondoakaa‘s controversial position on the matter. It is aimed at scuttling the widespread demand for an Acting President.

I laugh whenever I hear people say that, with Abutu‘s judgment, Jonathan can take all decisions on behalf of Yar‘Adua. Are we saying a man whose orders were openly flouted by some ministers only a few weeks ago has changed and become more powerful by that judgment? By these new powers, can he remove ministers and appoint new ones? In case of external aggression or internal upheaval such as the Boko Haram uprising or Jos mayhem, can Jonathan act as the Commander-In-Chief and call out the military to quell sectarian violence or external attack? The plain truth is that Jonathan cannot perform duties not directly assigned to him by Yar‘Adua.

Section 5 (1) of the 1999 Constitution says the President can exercise his powers directly or through the Vice-President and ministers. Section 148(1) also says the President may, in his discretion, assign to the Vice-President or any minister responsibility for any business of the government.

I see no room in these sections where the Vice-President can take independent actions or responsibilities except those assigned to him by the President. Even with Abutu‘s judgment, Jonathan‘s situation has not changed. He still has to take orders from the President. From his BBC interview, Yar‘Adua is still a long way to recovery. With his frail voice and fragile health situation, it is obvious that orders cannot always be proceeding directly from the President. I am not sure his doctors have allowed him to receive calls. Jonathan will therefore have to depend on sources close to the President for directives, as he has done in the past 55 days.

Naturally, the closest person to Yar‘Adua under this dire situation is his wife. It seems to me that the Abutu judgment was arranged to rubber-stamp the presidential-directives-by-proxy system. Abutu himself did not mince words when he said Jonathan would only continue to serve as Vice-President and not as Acting President. But the question remains: why is this cabal running away from giving us an Acting President?

What has revealed the weakness and vulnerability of the Nigerian State is the poor response of the legislators, who are supposed to be the people‘s representatives, to the logjam. Instead of fighting on the side of the people, those in the legislative arm have largely become tools in the hand of those manipulating the polity for selfish reasons. For a long time, the legislators went to join the prayer warriors. When the National Assembly finally found its voice, its decisions failed to defuse tension. The House of Reps. took a laughable decision to take a get-well card to the President in Saudi Arabia. Let them not waste taxpayers‘ money on a frivolous trip abroad

Without giving a time frame, the Senate decided to invite the Secretary to the Federal Government, Yayale Ahmed, to brief it on matters relating to Yar‘Adua‘s health. All we need is a resolution by both chambers, asking the Federal Executive Council to determine Yar‘Adua‘s fitness for the job. I doubt whether they will ever do the right thing. They are rarely found on the side of social justice.

Thus, we have seen a complete paralysis of all the arms and institutions of government. From the Federal Executive Council to the National Assembly and the Judiciary, the response to the power void has been weak and disappointing. All the state institutions have failed to tame tension and arrest the drift. The reason for this, I‘m told, is about who becomes President in 2011. If Yar‘Adua decides not to run owing to ill-health, his camp wants to remain firmly in control in order to pick a successor. If Jonathan becomes Acting President, he may use government machinery to tilt political fortunes on the side of his own anointed candidate. It is the evil cabal behind this crude and predatory political calculation that has been holding the nation to ransom. But this is not altogether unexpected in a country where the public office is largely used as a pathway to wealth.

As owners of the political powers being abused, it is the responsibility of all patriotic citizens to join hands to rebuild the nation‘s institutions. A strong civil society has always been behind every nation that has made progress. That is why it is said that a nation deserves the kind of leadership it has. The easiest way to lose the struggle for a better society is for the people to fold their arms and do nothing. Those who are benefiting from the decay in the land will never voluntarily surrender power. Freedom, as they say, is not something given; it is taken.

Unfortunately, the nation‘s civil society has become especially weak and fragile in the past 10 years. More than ever before, Nigerians are now fragmented along regional, ethnic and religious lines. The “Enough is Enough” rally held in Abuja was spearheaded by aging patriots such as Wole Soyinka. Those committed to the struggle for a better society are well above the age of 50. Where are the youths who are at the receiving end of bad policies? Where are the students of tertiary institutions who will graduate into a huge and congested unemployment market? Where are the workers‘ unions? Where are the farmers? Where are the Okada riders and other victims of bad governance?

The fragmentation of the civil society has made it possible for a few unpatriotic people to corner the state and its resources for their own selfish use. The civil rights movement made America the great nation that it now is. When are we going to come together to build a great future for ourselves and generations yet unborn?

(www.punchng.com)