Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy have released the 2008 version of the Failed States Index. 177 countries have been ranked. Twelve sets of indicators are used 8211; and for each indicator, a country is ranked on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being most stable and 10 being least stable.
As is but inevitable, such indicators are difficult to pin down and quantify. There is inherent subjectivity, especially if cross-country comparisons are attempted. However, the exercise is not without utility.
Evidently, India is has particular problems with demographic pressures, a legacy of violence, chronic human flight, uneven economic development along group lines, deterioration of public services and a security apparatus operating as a 8216;state within a state8217;.
In all probability, most Indians will agree with most of these, but raise their eyebrows on the security apparatus claims. This raises a question impossible to answer. Understandably, debates are more visible in democracies, particularly in media. Since rankings factor in media reports and NGO reactions, does that exaggerate the importance of items like violence, uneven development, worsening public services and an overweening security system? In June 2008, UN polled respondents in 19 countries on their views on torture. The majority in 14 countries wanted unequivocal rules against torture. The four exceptions, when respondents wanted exceptions made for terrorists when innocent lives were at stake, were India, Nigeria, Turkey and Thailand, with India leading the group at 59 per cent. 28 per cent of Indians felt all torture should be prohibited, 47 per cent accepted limited torture of terrorists to save innocent lives and 12 per cent felt torture should generally be allowed. In a similar poll conducted in June-July 2006, the percentage of Indians supporting torture was 32 per cent, not 59 per cent. Assuming samples are comparable, that8217;s a very sharp increase indeed.
To get back to the Failed States Index, the scores on those twelve heads are now aggregated with equal weights. The scale thus has a maximum of 120 and a minimum of 0.
An indicator like sustained human flight is included in the 12 categories with the plausible hypothesis that given a choice, people exit migrate from misgoverned countries to better governed ones. Or in the given context, if measurement is robust, from a relatively stable country to a more stable one. The only other country with a score of 72.9 is Namibia. How many Indians would like to trade place with Namibians? For that matter, how many Indians would like to exit to Kazakhstan, Senegal, Libya, or Ghana? All four are more 8220;stable8221; than India.
Norway leads the group of the most stable countries, with Japan bringing up the rear. India falls into the category of border-line states, in some danger 8211; only slightly ahead of China.
Countries that fall into the critical group and declared failed states, are led by Syria, and Somalia brings up the rear. With the exception of Bhutan and Maldives, all of South Asia Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal finds a place here. Ignoring a few individual countries, other significant failed state zones on the global map are sub-Saharan Africa excluding southern Africa and the Middle East. If we ignore cross-border linkages and decide to celebrate our relative stability status, here is a quote from the Fund on whether there are states that have pulled back from the brink of failure: 8220;The most dramatic ones are those that did it without outside military or administrative intervention. In the 1970s, analysts predicted dire consequences, including mass famine and internal violence in India, citing rapid population growth, economic mismanagement, and extensive poverty and corruption. Today, India has turned itself around. It is the world8217;s largest democracy, with a competitive economy and a representative political system.8221; This isn8217;t a reference to the Emergency.
Who were these analysts who had predicted mass famine, internal violence and economic mismanagement in India of the 1970s? Disagreeing with economic policies of the late 1960s and the early 1970s is one thing. Using such strong words is another. Notice that the claim is about the 1970s, that is, after the Green Revolution had started. And by the mid-1970s, India was self-sufficient in food. Hence, these analysts are presumably Paul Ehrlich who was a biologist and Lester Brown, from US Department of Agriculture. Several pinches of not just salt, but also pepper, are warranted. Nevertheless, without blowing up importance of such cross-country rankings, they serve some utility. Consider it differently. A critical country is one with a score of more than 90. Sticking to the methodology used, a score of more than 7.5 on any of those 12 heads pushes a country towards a critical state. If one uses a cutoff of 7 rather than 7.5, India has problems with demographic pressures, a legacy of violence and uneven economic development. This is in 2008. If one tracks changes over time, India has had problems in all these areas, as well as with sustained human flight. It is extremely debatable whether demographic change and human flight should be described as problems. On violence and uneven development, there can be no dispute these are serious public policy issues.
As a postscript, Ehrlich never recovered from his trip to Delhi and his famous book 8220;The Population Bomb8221; states, 8220;psychologically, the population explosion first sunk in on a stinking hot night in Delhi. The streets were alive with people. People eating, people washing themselves, people sleeping, people working, arguing and screaming. People reaching their hands in through taxi windows to beg8230;People, people, people.8221; This is emotion, not reason. When will Ehrlich be exorcised?
India8217;s ranking in the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy Failed States Index
Indicator Mounting demographic pressures
Score 8.0
Indicator Massive movement of refugees or internally displaced persons
Score-3.2
Indicator Legacy of violence
Score7.0
Indicator Chronic and sustained human flight
Score6.9
Indicator Uneven economic development along group lines
Score8.9
Indicator Sharp and/or severe economic decline
Score4.6
Indicator Criminalisation and/or de-legitimisation of the state
Score4.8
Indicator Progressive deterioration of public services
Score6.7
Indicator Suspension or arbitrary application of rule of law and widespread violation of human rights
Score6.0
Indicator The operation of a security apparatus as a 8220;state within a state8221;
Score6.6
Indicator Rise of factionalised elites
Score6.0
Indicator Intervention of other states or external political actors
Score 4.2
The writer is a noted economist bdebroygmail.com
