"Failed" States

         When it comes to the status of “failed” states, primarily those in Africa, the leaders are not solely at fault for the depravity of their situation. First and foremost, failed states owe their circumstance to the colonization and decolonization by major powers in the 19^th century. While the leaders who have come into power in these countries have made it worse, ultimately these nations are not failed, but have been failed. If failure is measured by effectiveness and legitimacy, as well as things like human rights, fractionalization and civil wars, these can be best understood by looking at the roles of colonial powers.

            Professor McCauley, a teacher of politics and the developing world at the University of Maryland, cites two reasons of why colonial powers have had a negative impact on developing countries. This includes arbitrary borders drawn by the world powers and the extractive institutions put in place in the harsher colonized areas. While not all of these now decolonized developing countries are failed, essentially all of the failed states were at one point colonized. France and the UK were two of the biggest powers in the region, were seeking more land and therefore drew arbitrary borders with no respect to the people on the ground. Because of this, ethnic groups were forced together and others were split. Due to fractionalization in these countries even after decolonization, it allowed for the extreme suppression of one ethnic group by another. When this happens, it is significantly more likely for a state to become weak and allow human right violations and lack of political stability.

            Extractive institutions also play a big part in explaining why some countries are now failed or failing states. In nice places, colonial powers set up settler institutions for people to migrate to and establish their own laws and live. This created a stable infrastructure for the future country to build on. However, in the harsher areas like Africa, they merely used the land for its resources and people and did not establish any lasting establishments. By taking people from the land and valuable resources, decolonization was potentially worse for these countries because they then lacked a stable ruling authority and instead had to create their own with few means of doing so. Even after a government was established, these areas had been drained and therefore were unable to sustain good economies, which is critical for creating an effective and legitimate ruler.

          Since not all decolonized countries have become failed states, it is important to note how those failed ones are different. These ones had a higher chance for conflict due to higher fractionalization, especially in the case of Sudan where there is still debate on the split to South Sudan. Many of these also may have had less natural resources to begin with and therefore have a harder time providing goods to contribute to the global economy. Ultimately, these states have been failed in the past, and while their current regimes may make the situation worse, it is major world powers and colonization that put them in that situation to begin with.