Part 1- How to Identify Failing Nation States

Readers of this substack, or my previous blog, will be aware that the ongoing decline of western nation states is a topic which I have always found interesting- for reasons ranging from the practical to the esoteric. With that in mind, here is an updated and very condensed version of my views on how to identify failing and failed nation states. For the purpose of this article, we will broadly divide them into three broad and somewhat overlapping categories: successful, borderline and failed. This classification, while not perfect, is useful for understanding the process by which nations move from one category to another- in both directions. It also allows us to understand the pre-conditions necessary for moving from one category to the next. I will use real world contemporary examples familiar to most readers, rather than some quaint or historical examples. But before we go there, let us try to define a nation state.

Modern nation states, as we understand them today, have existed for only the past 100-150 years.. maybe 200, if you really push the definition. Prior to that there were city states, kingdoms, empires and even something which resembles proto-nation states, but no nation states. So what are the distinguishing features of a modern nation state? The first distinguishing feature of a nation state is the presence of a large, pervasive and impersonal bureaucracy. While bureaucracies of some sort have existed since the first recorded kingdoms in human history, they were almost always limited to revenue collection, property record keeping and dispensing justice according to the laws of that time. Functions beyond these, combined with large numbers of personnel and a high degree of centralization are not seen prior to past 200 years in any part of the world, though some dynastic periods in China did come close.

The second feature of a nation state is an artificially manufactured ethnic identity and standardized language, implemented in a top-down manner. For example, there was considerable regional variation in the spelling of English words throughout UK as late as early 1800s and regional accents were far stronger and more distinct than today in the early 1900s. Similarly, what we today recognize today as French was just one branch of a group of French languages, and was mostly spoke in and around Paris. Religious identity in India, is another example of this pattern, with many people not identifying as exclusively Hindu or Muslim as late as 1850s. Similar patterns are seen throughout the world with many people identifying with their local communities, regions, dialects etc rather than some manufactured ethnic and linguistic identity.

Another characteristic feature of modern states is their unfortunate predisposition to getting involved in the interpersonal lives of their people, usually with negative effects. Prior to these entities coming into existence- most issues such as divorce, adultery, most crimes etc were dealt with at the level of extended family or community. While we could argue about whether one way is better than the other, it is worth pointing out that many traditional communities and small principalities have flourished and survived for hundreds of years under these conditions- something no modern state can yet claim. In contrast, we have tons of examples of nation states getting involved in these areas and making things worse for everybody concerned- just look at what happened to family life under state communism and Nazism or what is happening today in “liberal” western democracies.

A fourth feature of nation states, and perhaps the most serious objection against their continued existence, is that they are designed to fleece and exploit the majority for the benefit of a select few. For example- the transformation of UK into a nation state starting in the early 1800s benefited a small percentage of its population while simultaneously impoverishing the majority. The quality of life for majority of British population actually went down during the first century of UK becoming a nation state in spite of all the money flowing into that country from colonization. Most people today don’t realize the severe poverty and high levels of deprivation among the working class were seen as normal until the 1920s and it took WW2 and the modern welfare state which followed to finally eliminate high levels of poverty and material deprivation in that country. My point is that nation states largely exist to allow a small percentage of the population extract various forms of rent from the rest of society.

With that out of the way, let us explore some other features of nation states- with an eye on how their inability to perform them are signs of systemic failure.

1] The ability of a government to maintain laws, rules and order over the entirety of its territory is an obvious and useful proxy for whether the nation has failed or is in the process of failing. At this point, we should talk about one group of countries which can definitively be labeled as failed nation states- namely, every single country in south and central America. While this characterization might seem harsh and borderline racist, it is neither. The sad truth is that every country in Latin America is a failed nation state on multiple levels. While there are many reasons they ended up like that, this part of the post will focus on one of the most visible manifestation of failed states- the inability of government to control a significant part of its territory. Let us start by asking a simple question about Latin American countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela etc- do the governments in these countries really control the country outside the nicer parts of of a few major cities, major roads, official points of entry etc? More importantly, did they ever?

Even in a relatively well-functioning country such as Mexico, it is common knowledge that the full power of the government does not extend much beyond the nicer parts of major cities, and various criminal gangs have more power than them in more than a few provinces. Notably, this state of affairs is not new and has been a feature of Mexican life since that country gained its independence from Spain in a protracted and messy civil war in the early to mid 1800s. Some blame this state of affairs on political volatility caused by an almost endless number of coups and assassinations over the first 100 years of Mexico as a independent nation state- and there is some merit in that argument. However a comparison of Latin American countries to others in South-East Asia provides an interesting counter-argument. Even though most countries in that area only gained independence through decolonization after WW2, they are in much better shape than their counterparts in Latin America.

If you don’t believe me, compare anything from crime statistics, availability of government services, general safety etc in countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia to Colombia, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. It quickly becomes obvious that governments of South-East Asian countries with an equivalent level of adjusted income are far more functional and able to deliver public goods and services far more effectively than their Latin American counterparts- and are getting better at it with each passing year. At this point, some readers might wonder if it possible for a country to come close to being a failed state and then go back to being a functional one? Well.. yes and Russia is a good example. Between 1991 and 1999, Russia came close to being a failed state but after Putin and his associates came to power, things turned around. Curiously, Ukraine took a different path and has never recovered since the dissolution of USSR in 1991, and by the look of things might disappear in a few years time- the nation state, not the people.. though many millions have already left that country for good. So what is the dividing line between failed and failing states? In my opinion, it comes down to whether the dysfunction is acute or chronic. People will tolerate a decade or two of dysfunction without losing hope in the system, but multigenerational dysfunction (as seen in Latin America) results in them loosing all hope in the system ever functioning properly.

So how does this classification scheme apply to a country such as India? In my opinion, it is not a successful state like China or Japan - but it is also not a failed state like Brazil or other Latin American countries. As things stand right now, it is a borderline state which could go either way in the future. While it is easy to list the many reasons India is not a successful state, few can list the reasons why it is not a failed state- so here is a list. While real economic growth and progress in post-1947 India has been uneven and slow (especially in the past), it has not seen any real forced change of government via a military coup or a west-funded fake “color” revolution. The overall direction of growth while slow and even, especially prior to the 1980s, has been consistently in one direction- something not true for real failed nation states. The government has been largely able to maintain general law and order throughout the country, especially since the 1990s and elections are very largely seen as legitimate. The government, especially at the national level, seems to be doing an ok (if barely so) job at building and maintaining infrastructure. It also helps that the elite in that country seem to still identify with their country rather than some other place- like their counterparts in Latin America.

In the next part of this series, I will go over four more features of failed and failing nation states- namely, the processive inability of government to build or maintain public infrastructure, ruling elites who identify with or are beholden to other nations, systemic structural issues with the government and institutions and overall direction of “progress”- all explained with specific examples.

What do you think? Comments?