Is It Possible to Reconstruct a State?

Is It Possible to Reconstruct a State? Definitions: According to Max Weber, â€Å"State is an entity which possesses a delegatable monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.† (Warner, 1991) When a state looses its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force or looses its capacity to perform even the most basic functions within its territory, it comes under the category of failed/ dysfunctional states. Most of the times reasons for failure of a state are civil war, international conflict, corrpution, lack of resources etc. De jure state[1] State which exist by a fiat of the international community, which recognizes them as soveregin entities whether or not they have a government capable of effectively controlling or administering the territory. Example- Somalia De facto state- State which receives no international recognition and has weak institutions, but where power is exercised and enforced within its territory. Examples- Kurdistan, Puntland, Somaliland De facto de jure state- State which enjoys international recognition and excercises control over people and territory through formal and strong, preferably democratic instritutions. This is the modern state in all its legal- rational Weberian splendour. In other words, this is the model the international community tries to replicate in dysfunctional states. Reconstruction:- is a process of recreation of an entity by the intrnal or external forces. Externally-led-reconstruction Where International actors intervene into a state and try to reconstrct. This model demands transtition from dysfunctional de jure state to the Weberian de facto state. Examples- Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. Internally-led-reconstruction- Where domestic actors inside a state try to bring change. A transition from dysfunctional de jure state to a de facto state that slowly develops institutions, though not necessarily democratic ones. Examples- Mozambique, Kurdistan etc. Historically failed states simply used to disappear, divided up or conquered by a more powerful neighbour but today’s conventional wisdom has it that collapsed states must be reconstructed immediately and comprehensively along the lines of democratic countries with free market economies, thanks to the intervention by international community.[2] International community has assumed that it is both possible and essential for all the dysfunctional state to be reconstructed within their old borders but this assumption is very recent one. In the 1990s intervention by international community in a dysfunctional state invariably entailed the organizing of multi-party elections within the shortest possible time. For example. The Lusaka agreement of 1999 required the warring parties of DRC[3] to engage in ‘national dialogue’ to reach agreement on a new democratic political syatem and to hold elections. The December 2001, Bonn agreement called for holding of a loya Jirga[4] in Afghanisatn to reach agreement on a new democratic political system, to be followed by elections. Historically, attempts to reconstruct a state can be categorized in two ways- Externally-led-reconstruction:- Donor approach[5] of reconstruction includes setting up of new democratic institutions, re-writing constitutions, new election laws, creating civil society organization, liberalization of the economy etc. Most of the times these organizations do not turn out to be significant and established-hence institutions because most of the time they do not provide solution to the real problems on the ground. But donors, however, think of institution building, less in terms of finding solutions to what local actors preceive to be problems, and more in terms of transpalnting â€Å"best practices† that have been successful elsewehere. In the end, this approach of international community makes difficult for organizations to become institutions because they do not solve the real time problems. International community also wants institutions to come into function within a short span of time which is impossible. Internally-led-reconstruction:- The domestic actors that reconstruct states are miliatry men and politicians, who are more prone to act than to write, meaning by creation of constitution and institutions (liked by international community) is usually not their first priority. Majority of the internally led reconstuction of states come from Africa. For example in Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia, first step towards reconstruction was military victory. Since there were no other means at the disposal of domestic actors to generate the authority needed to govern a state, the only path was recourse to the raw power generated by superior force. Once they had generated legitimacy through force, they tried to transfrom that raw power into authority by regularizing institutions and processes of governemnt. This led to the reconstruction of the state, but not to the emergence of democratic states. Major components, free choice and popular participation were missing. Thus International community doesnà ¢â‚¬â„¢t like this approach. Criticism of Externally-led-reconstruction- Best practices do not solve real problems. For example, in Afghanistan retributional justice, against the wishes of President Karzai, was adopted against Taliban which became reason for Taliban to re-emerge. But if we look at the South African trasition from Aprtiheid regime, it was very smooth because they practiced what suited South Africa’s future the best. Donor supported institution building put an unbearable burdan on fragile states and in the end becomes self-defeating. For example , the strength of Afghan Army is 3,75,000. Annual budget of the Army and the annual income of the state are similar. Therefore, if there is no international committment then how will Afghan state fund the salaries of soldiers and what is their use if Taliban can come to negotiating terms. In most of the attempts of reconstruction, so-called institution building is not part of a sustained, open ended intrnational commitment to remain involved until the process is completed, but rather part of an exit strategy. Donors wants organizations in place so that they can go home but to my understanding that is a self-defeating strategy. Criticism of Internally-led-reconsturction- The actors wants to create a de facto state but usually they don’t have resources Even if they have the capacity to reconstruct the de facto state, they are likely to be reluctant to curb their newly acquired power and move from dictatorship or raw power to institutionalized politics and rule of law. In both types of state reconstruction, a major challenge lies in moving from â€Å"order imposed through power to the institutions† because institutions help in regularising authority in the long run. In internal reconstruction processes, second phase of state reconstruction[6] often fails to take place, because those who have consolidated power have little incentive to limit its exercise by developing institutions. In donor-directed processes, the international community rushes to develop institutions, but tends to withdraw the power that buttresses them far too soon, leading to failure. Some prescriptions to reconstruct a state:- When we think about the term reconstruction, we should give enough attention towards the possible outcome and resources at our disposal. Above all we need to know the short term and long term goals. Sometimes states are in need of means of survival but we are busy in creating democratic institutions and implementing best practices of governance for them. Thus we need to create and promote institutions according to the relevance and need of the hour but at the same time keeping in mind the long term goals. We need to recognize the potential candidates of statehood. For an example, Kurdistan Regional Government is a de facto state but it does not have international recognition. We are afraid of accepting the nationhood for Kurdistan. The same goes for Somaliland or Puntland. International community need to give heed to the de facto states. We need to know that institution building is a slow process and one size does not fit all- hence one type of system cannot fulfil the needs of every state. Every place is different on the earth and people have different approaches to the life. Thus we shouldn’t impose so-called â€Å"best practices† of governance in every corner of the world. Above all we shouldn’t create those institutions which can put unbearable burden on fragile states and become self defeating. For example- strong military apparatus in Afghanistan. If any state believes in the implementation of the â€Å"best practices† then that donor should set modest targets and should have long term commitment. We shouldn’t’ expect too much too soon. As saying goes, It takes 18 years for an infant to turn into an adult then how we can expect an institution to be functional within few years. Conclusion Reconstruction of states is a very difficult process. In 21st century, international community believes that there can not exist any failed states in the world and if there is any then we need to reconstruct it. But a lot of lessons needs to be learnt before we take up new assignments of reconstruction. Neither extrnal led, nor internal led approaches of reconstruction are perfect but with some improvements they can yield descent outcomes. International community always seems to be in hurry to build institutions but it requires a very long term commitment for organizations to turn into established institutions. Sometimes there is severe imbalance between the goals set by international community and the resources donors are willing to commit to attain the goals. It is possible to reconsturct a state if whatever organizations we set up, help in solving real probelms on the ground and thus become long lasting instutions. But if we just delpoy best practices without giving heed to the possible outcomes, it can lead to failure. Internally led reconstruction can also yield positive results if international community can provide long term commitment in building institutions. At the same time international community should bring de facto states into de jure states but there are always no easy choices to make. Bibliography:- Jackson, R. (1990) Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daniel Warner (1991) An ethic of responsibility in International Relations. Lynne Rienner Publishers Chang, H. (2000) `Institutional Development in Developing Countries in a Historical Perspective: Lessons from Developed Countries in Earlier Times. Forman, S. and S. Patrick (2000) Good Intentions: Pledges of Aid for Post-Conflict Recovery. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction (2009), United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington DC Marina Ottaway (2003), Rebuilding State Institutions in Collapsed States, EBSCO publishing house. Call Charles T. (2008). â€Å"Building States to Build Peace? A critical analysis†. Journal of Peacebuilding and Development Vol.4 n.2 p.60. De Weijer, F. (2013). ‘A Capable State in Afghanistan: A Building without a Foundation?’ WIDER Working Paper No. 2013/063. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER. [1] Definitions of de jure and de facto states have been borrowed from the work of Robert R Jackson. [2] International Community- in this paper this word means â€Å"the conglomerate of industrialized democracies and the multilateral agencies over which industrialized countries have preponderant influence.† [3] DRC- Democratic Republic of Congo [4] Loya Jirga- is a special type of grand assembly that is mainly organized to choose a new head of state in case of sudden death, to adopt new constitution or to settle serious issues such as war etc. [5] Donors- International community including international organizations [6] Second phase of reconstruction in internally led reconstruction is to transform raw power into authority by establishing institutions.