Vishal Hemnani
GVPT 200
26 October 2014
In FX’s new TV series, Tyrant, the
fictional nation of Abbudin fits the exact criteria of a “failed” state. The show revolves around Jamal and Barry
Al-Fayeed, sons of the late President of Abuddin, Khaled Al-Fayeed. Barry is
the younger brother to Jamal and is returning from America after a self-imposed
20-year exile. His elder brother Jamal is Abuddin’s newly appointed president,
following his father’s footsteps as a dictator. Throughout the show, themes of
political instability, social unrest, human right abuses, and the use of
military power for oppression all contribute to Abbudin as a failed state.
The first
and most important indicator is political instability and social unrest. The people
of Abuddin view Jamal as an unruly leader, worse than his father. The nation is
in constant disarray, as individuals form an opposition against Jamal that is
strong enough to force him into military action. This is similar to the
opposition groups in Syria fighting for a regime change against the Ba’athist
government. To many, Syria is considered a failed state thus this comparison
yields that Abuddin must be seen the same way. The show even alludes to the
Arab Spring, claiming that Abuddin is the next country to fall into civil war with
Jamal being the one overthrown. Most would agree that the countries apart of
the Arab Spring are “failed states”. In addition political instability is
highlighted by the great influence Barry has over Jamal’s presidency. Barry’s
role in this show is to advise Jamal, who absolutely trusts his younger
brother. When it is apparent to Barry that Jamal is not right for their
country, he organizes a coup to overtake his brother’s presidency. He coerces’
Jamal to accept rebel’s demands for a democratic election, and aims to sabotage
his ability to retain head of state, all with the intention of instituting
democracy. The important thing to note is the great change this country endures
as it momentarily transforms from a tyranny to a democracy upon arrival of one
person, Barry. This political instability ultimately backfires as Jamal
discovers his brother’s ulterior motive and responds with a tirade against all
the “progress” he has made. Professor Shirk mentioned that a coup within a
nation is a sign of fractionalization within the government. These lack of
defined roles between those in power are part of the reason why Abuddin “fails”.
Another reason to identify Abuddin as
a failed state is their history of human right violations. Barry’s decided to leave
Abuddin and flee to America because he was disgusted by his father’s massacre
of many Abuddin nationals. An opposition group rioting at the town square was
met with deadly gas attacks by Abuddin’s military under his father’s rule. While
Barry fought for democracy in the nation, Jamal followed the ways of his
father. When the same situation arose again, Jamal turned to military force to
force out rebel groups. Once again, this response is similar to the Syrian
government’s chemical weapons attack during their civil war in 2013. The use of
military at the disposal of the president is an additional reason to view
Abuddin as failed. There is no form of “right to trial” as those who speak out
against the government are met with a gun to the head. In failed states,
military leaders run the country and oppress the people through violence.
Based on the standards set today, the
ever-changing power shit in the government shows instability. This alongside the
disregard for the state’s well being and the constant turmoil among the people are
reasons to classify this fictional nation a failed state.
Vishal-
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with the show, but it sure sounds like Abuddin is a failed state. I'm curious about how other countries react to it though. Is there foreign intervention on the same scale that we see in the Middle East now, or do Western countries generally leave it alone? Also, what implications does the show make about how other states should react to a failed state? I think that your topic choice is very interesting, and it's useful to think about the larger social message of the show.
Elliot-
DeleteThe show doesn't necessarily emphasize how other states react to their domestic issues, but there is recognition that Abuddin is similar to other nations that have fallen victim to the Arab Spring. As for foreign intervention, the "coup" I explained before was driven by US influence within Abuddin, as US officials in the nation assisted Barry in the process. The show gave an interesting perspective as to how the US interacts within Abuddin, where they are often looking the other way in regards to domestic issues as long as US interests are met. While this is all fictional of course, it isn't too far fetched to believe that US presence within many Middle Eastern countries are driven more by self interest rather than humanitarian obligations.
Vishal-
DeleteThanks for the explanation. It sounds a lot like the US-organized coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized Iranian oil.
I really enjoy the text-to-world connection you made. I also think it’s rewarding to see shows on TV about fictional settings (perhaps future settings) that deviate from the cliché utopian environment.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to respond more directly to your post: you list some characterizations of a failed state as political instability, social unrest, human right abuses, and the use of military power for oppression. How valid to you think these characterizations are? Do you think any are missing? Do you think any of these characterizations are more or less valid than others in the list? Do you think some characterizations allude to a good point but are worded poorly, thereby subtracting from its overall effectiveness. For example, you reference human right abuses. What does that mean exactly? Gay couples still don’t have the right to marry in many places in the US. It is increasingly considered that this is a denial of human rights. It can be considered an abuse of human rights because a majority is suppressing a minority. But surely this exhibit of “human right abuses” doesn’t equate the US to a failed state? Perhaps modifiers are necessary to exemplify this characteristic of a failed state. Modifiers like: tragic or costly? Or maybe a quantifier. Furthermore, don’t you think it would be beneficial to include an economic characterization of a failed state? Also, does a failed stated exhibit all of or even most of these characteristics?
Vishal, I really enjoyed reading your post as I found it very interesting that a television show could emphasize such a topic as failed states. I do not know the show either, but it sounds as if it is very interesting and can easily be applied to real world situation, as you did with Syria. It certainly sounds that Abuddin is a failed state as it emphasizes many of the criteria that a failed state has. I thought this was a clever take on applying the class concepts to something outside of class and you did a great job of it.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Read over and check your blog post before publishing as there are many grammar mistakes that easily could have been fixed.
I like how well this discussion of failed states fits into tv shows as it almost shows the counterfactual of what could have happened in other states if situations had been changed. Your description of the show also reminds me of North Korea in the transition of power and human rights violations. I find it particularly interesting because both North Korea and Abudiin may have not been considered failed states when their original dictator was in charge, at least in the early years. When their successors came into power however, both nations began to go downhill fast and it's hard to see a hope for future change when it becomes a dictatorship passed through a family. I also think it parallels well because of recent discussions on how much power Kim Jung-un actually has and how much of it is "behind the scenes" people like Barry in the show.
ReplyDelete