As for the David Carment’s analysis, it focuses on the causes of failure and defines state failure as a non-linear process claiming that states may move from the status of weak to failed state(23). State failure may be explained through three perspectives that are the macro or long term processes associated with system-structure transformations, the intermediate state-society relations (institutional viability and state weakness) and finally the micro level strategic interactions between groups (violence and repression)(24).
With regard to the macro processes, the essential factors which are the authority, the legitimacy and the political capacity of a state may lead to failure. The post Second World War decolonization gave birth to new African and Asian States which were defined as weak because they faced with conditions of insecurity. Indeed, they had to defend borders that were arbitrary; the states consisted of many ethnic groups; and the states had no real leader able to build inclusive civic and democratic cultures(25). Furthermore, according to Mohammed Ayood, those weak states may move from weak to failure due to the withdrawal of external support and as a result, those states are defined as “quasi-states” because they are not able to establish an effective statehood(26). In addition to these facts, states may fail when they have no control anymore of the political sphere and the economic sphere. Failed states see the intervention of outside actors in their politics that makes weak their sovereignty. The economic sphere becomes restricted due to the intervention of neighbouring states and the birth of an informal economy. Another important cause of failure is without a doubt colonialism. Africa exemplifies this fact where ethnic groups and diverse political or religious groups were created through colonialism. The consequence is the birth of a political system structured by politicised ethnically based patron-client relationships(27).
Globalization may also be a factor of failure. Neoliberal economic forces continue to weaken the states already defined as weak because of their inability to compete with the international norms. Weak States are not able to provide the public goods that are internationally the norms.
With regard to the state-society relations, state failure may result from the failure of societal values that leads to the breakdown of the political and social order(28). In order not to fail, the state has to fulfil its main functions of statehood. The social contract that links the state and the citizens has to be maintained. If not, the government is not able to keep an internal cohesion and begins to loss its legitimacy. As a consequence, the government has not any capacity to avoid the societal fragmentations. So, the government cannot provide anymore the necessary public goods. Then, traditional communities or ethnic groups become the new providers of security and goods. And finally, multiple identities replace the homogeneity of a state culture. Those ethnic groups try to create some political and economic infrastructures which will replace the central hierarchical authority.
Finally, the micro-level perspectives focus on the interactions between ethnic groups emerging from the increasingly anarchy(29). People seek to protect themselves and the best mean is to join a community that has the capacities to protect and to offer goods. The problem is that the different emerging communities do not trust one another(30) and it creates violence and sometimes, in the worst situation, ethnic cleansing. Indeed, without an internal arbitrary, groups face with an escalation of violence which becomes the central political tool. The external organizations, as humanitarian organizations, can make worse the situation when they decide to help a community rather than another. The escalation of conflict becomes more and more important. So the causes of failure are diverse, as well internal as external.
23 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol
24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003. 24 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
25 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
26 Mohammed Ayood, State-making, State-breaking and state failure, Chester A. Crocker and Fen Osler Hampson eds, Managing Global Chaos: Sources and responses to international conflict, United States Institute of peace press, 1996.
27 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
28 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
29 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
30 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.