The Susceptibility of Post-Colonial States to Failure

by

Michael “Nykolai” Blichar Jr.

Social Research Design and Writing

POL 101WI-10

Dr. Steve B. Lem

Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

March 28, 2015

Blichar Jr. 1

Abstract

This paper presents the question of asking what factors in particular contribute to post-

colonial states becoming “failed states”. The paper looks at both internal factors, as well as

external factors that may provide an answer to that question. After analyzing the literature

regarding both of these subjects, two approaches to analyzing the major factors for post-colonial

state failure are offered. The paper takes both of these approaches and formulates a new

approach to better understand why post-colonial states fail in the first place by combing factors.

Blichar Jr. 2

Introduction

The concept of the nation state has been one of great importance for the international

community ever since the concept was established with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in

1648 effectively ending the Thirty-Years War. This agreement brought about the current system

of nation states, which today includes roughly 197 independent and sovereign entities, 195 of

which are either a member or an observer state to the United Nations. However, only fairly

recently has the world system included such a large number of sovereign states. The Charter

established by the United Nations at its formation called for efforts at de-colonialization and the

respect of self-determination for all peoples’, which was laid out in Articles 73 and 74. With that,

the years following 1945 brought about independence for many of the colonies particularly in

Africa, Asia, and Oceania. However, since the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s these post-

colonial states have become the center of the “failed state” dilemma.

With this in mind, it is interesting to question why in particular post-colonial states are

those that see the designation of becoming a “failed state”. The question that needs to be

answered then, is what factors have led post-colonial states to failure? In order to answer this

question it is essential to analyze the internal factors, like ethnic and civil conflicts, as well as the

external factors, like the international community, that may contribute to the trend of failed post-

colonial states. The first task to analyze these factors is to define the concept of both the unit of

analysis, the post-colonial state, and the dependent variable, the “failed state”. Establishing these

definitions will be crucial to reviewing literature on the causes of state failure in post-colonial

states as well as developing a theory by reconciling the approaches that will be offered by the

literature. Ultimately, the end goal is to establish a hypothesis explaining what factors push post-

colonial states to be prone to failure.

Blichar Jr. 3

Defining the Concepts

The political landscape of the international community is very complex which often

creates an arena where many authors, researchers, and historians define certain concepts in

different ways. Due to differences in definitions it becomes important to lay out the definition of

both post-colonial states and those which have been categorized as “failed states”. Post-colonial

states for the most part as the unit of analysis, has an overall agreeable definition. The post-

colonial state are sovereign independent nation-states, which have gained independence from a

former colonial power, typically a European state and occasionally the United States of America.

It is important to point out that in this unit of analysis post-colonial states do not include the

nations of Latin and South America, but rather those which have gained independence during the

process of de-colonization from 1945 onward. Therefore the focus of the unit of analysis will be

the post-colonial states of Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.

The reason for using states from these regions is because these are the states in which the events

of a state failing are so frequent and rampant, many of which are post-colonial states in Africa

with Somalia leading as the most critical and has been for three consecutive years (Policy, 76).

Blichar Jr. 4

Defining the Concept of the “Failed State”

With the definition of the post-colonial state established, the next step is to define what a

“failed state” is when going forward in analyzing the factors of state failure. Some authors give a

variety of definitions on the term which typically revolve around the sovereignty of the state’s

government or the domestic stability of the state as a whole. An overarching definition often

given is that “failed states” are those in which political, economic, and social control over a

territory and its people have decreased overtime (Diamond, 13). While the definition formulated

by Diamond is overarching, it does not get to the center of specific factors that may lead to state

collapse. However, other definitions that are more specific are found in many works. Most

authors tend to define a “failed state” as one in which ethnic and civil conflict is rampant which

includes the push for self-determination among the fighting ethnic groups (Schultz, 82). Other

authors go further to add that when a post-colonial government loses the ability to control its use

of force, territory, and people, then it has also become a “failed state”.

Of course, the definitions provided by authors is essential in preparing a working

definition in analyzing the factors that contribute to state failure, but it is also important to

include historical examples as well. The most common example that many others tend to point to

is the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990’s. Yugoslavia had been a nation which was created by

the Ally powers at the end of World War I and consisted of many diverse ethnic nations.

However, in the events that led to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism,

Yugoslavia which once had a very strong communist regime, became a weak government with

little control over its people or territory. Essentially the loss of control allowed for the ethnic

nations to break off and declare independence. What this historical example does is help to

provide validity to the definitions provided by authors like Schultz. Therefore the concept of the

Blichar Jr. 5

“failed state” for this analysis will be defined as a post-colonial state in which the sovereign

government has lost effective control over its use of force as well as the ability to govern its

territory and people, resulting in civil and ethnic conflicts, movements for self-determination,

and overall instability.

Literature Review

With a clear definition of a “failed state” outlined, the ability to measure the concepts and

analyze the factors that drives post-colonial states to failure is clearer. Throughout much of the

literature, two major approaches have been offered on the subject of post-colonial states

becoming “failed-states”. The first approach center around the internal or intrastate factors such

as ethnic conflict which contribute to the failure. The other approach offered by authors focuses

on the external or interstate factors, such as the international community, to explain the

continued failure of post-colonial states. Both approaches are necessary to understanding the

underlying factors that contribute to state failure and more importantly to point out any gaps in

the approaches that the literature does not address.

The Intrastate Approach

The Intrastate Approach, for the most part tends to focus on the internal factors that lead

to state failure in post-colonial states, particularly those of Africa and Asia. Most of the literature

agrees that post-colonial states experience symptoms of weak central governments that have lost

the ability to control most of its territory and people. However, this fact alone is not what allows

a state to be given the designation of failure. Rather these conditions allow for an atmosphere

where civil and ethnic conflicts can take place more frequently and rampantly. This is because

the central governments of these post-colonial states have lost their ability to prevent these

conflicts from occurring. One such example that many authors point to is the current status of

Blichar Jr. 6

Somalia. Somalia, which has gained independence in 1960 was formed from the joining of the

former British Somaliland and the Italian Trusteeship Territory because they consisted of people

who spoke the same language and followed the same religion, Sunni Islam (Shultz, 84).

However, what colonial powers neglected to understands is that while the peoples who inhabited

these areas has similar language and religious ties, there were very significant differences

between the Somali clans. As a result of these differences, clans would form their own

allegiances that undermined the ability for the Somali government to operate effectively,

especially when its own military also began to create alliances based on clans. By mid-1990

Somalia had lost its ability to control its military forces, as well as its people (Scultz, 85).

This very concept puts the focus on ethnicity and ethnic-conflicts as the central factor to

state failure in post-colonial states. Ethnic conflicts have been the main problem for many post-

colonial states in Africa. It is important to note that like the case of Somalia, these ethnic

conflicts have been a result of loss in legitimacy and governance in post-colonial states

(Ikelegebe, 492). It is both ethnic conflict and loss in legitimacy that leads a state to heightened

ethnic struggles and eventually state failure. The system of governance in which the post-

colonial state operates is many times the same system that was used during the colonial era. This

system was one in policies such as Indirect Rule were used as a way for colonial powers to

maintain control over the population of their territory. Almost all colonial administrations relied

a great deal on indigenous structures of power to govern which altered the power relations

among ethnic groups (Ake, 2). As a result ethnic groups were pushed to compete against one

other for political power and influence especially in the wake of decolonization turning ethnic

groups into political players.

Blichar Jr. 7

In many cases the ethnic group that inherits state power at independence forms a very

oppressive government in order to maintain that power and to prevent other ethnic groups from

challenging them. Most times this control is exercised through oppression, discrimination, and

restriction of access to governmental institutions. Rather than building a national identity among

the people of the state like that of states in Europe, post-colonial states of Africa and Asia were

based on the ethnicity of the ruling group (Shultz, 86). This form of rule led to an increase in

ethnic violence and disintegration of post-colonial states from within. Somalia, serves as the

primary example of this effect. When the state was formed the population lacked a sense of

nationhood, instead identification and the basis for political contention was brought about by

Somali clans who formed political parties or led efforts at coups (Ikelegebe, 492).

For an ethnic group to push its demand for power or autonomy, the creation of ethnic

militias became essential to legitimizing an ethnic group’s claim to state power and often times

to protect itself from other ethnic militias who may attack them. The Bakassi Boys concentrated

in the Bakassi Peninsula of Nigeria which was recently turned over to Cameroon in 2008 is one

such example of an ethnic militia. The Bakassi Boys was initially an armed group of fighters

formed in Nigeria in response to the killing of ethnic Igbos in the northern part of the country.

Most of their efforts were not overtly political but rather protectionist in regards to their ethnic

group (Ikelegebe, 495). As time would go on however, attacks on their people would lead them

to demand for autonomy of the Bakassi Peninsula in response to a weak and failing government

which could no longer protect them from other insurgents.

Much of the literature would argue that this type of constant bombardment creates a

situation in which the post-colonial state and its government never has time to develop or enforce

effective control over its territory and population. As a result many of the oppressed ethnic

Blichar Jr. 8

groups will seek autonomy or independence from the state completely by forming their own

regional governments and controlling territory. Looking back at Somalia, by 1990 clan warfare

and ethnic conflict led to the dissolution of the Somali state itself into de facto territories like that

of Somaliland and Puntland (Shultz, 87). Essentially, the state becomes one of failure and

Somalia is only one example of many states where ethnic conflict and governmental failure has

led to dissolution of a state deeming it a “failed state”. Authors would also argue that many times

this dissolution comes about as a result of not only governmental failure but also because

minority movements form in response to fears of marginalization and domination when one

ethnic group takes power (Ake, 8).

With both dissolution and failure of the government to control its territory and people,

essentially the post-colonial state is now designated as a “failed state”. The main factor of this, as

the Intrastate Approach points to is that ethnic conflict and struggle which has its roots in the

colonial era creates the arena for post-colonial states to fall apart. The Intrastate Approach would

argue that ethnic rivalries are the main and causal factor for state failure in many post-colonial

states, like that of Somalia and Nigeria. Much of the literature would make the argument that

ethnicity and ethnic conflicts are one of the biggest threats to the success of post-colonial states

and will remain the “Achilles Heel” in many of the states of Africa and Asia (Ikelegebe, 492).

The Interstate Approach

Although many authors would point to ethnic conflicts of post-colonial states as the main

factor and source of state failure, there are many other pieces of literature that argue in the

opposite direction for causes of state failure. What the Interstate Approach tends to focus on is

the external factors that contribute the success or failure of many post-colonial states. Much of

the literature that focuses on this approach looks at the colonial legacy primarily which has many

Blichar Jr. 9

post-colonial states to become “failed states”. A factor than many authors point to be the colonial

legacy that the international community has left to the post-colonial states. The international

community, particularly the colonial powers created clearly defined borders which usually

revolved around geographical boundaries. Colonial powers completely ignored previous borders

based on clan groups, former empires, and ethnic groups (Herbst, 121). Most of the literature

would argue that this very disregard for ethnic identity and diversity is what has led to ongoing

conflict in many post-colonial states.

During the process of decolonization, the United Nations General Assembly, declared

that the borders of any post-colonial state upon independence would remain intact and that

sovereignty would be recognized. The international community in granting sovereignty to many

of the new African and Asian states assumed that these states would take on the features of

sovereignty that defined the colonial powers (Herbst, 121). For many of the colonial powers,

sovereignty consisted of undeniable control over a territory, administrative authority and the

willingness of the people to be governed. What the international community assumed is that

most post-colonial states would also be able to have political and economic freedom, however

they did not. Much of the literature points to this very assumption as the factor that has led post-

colonial states to failure, because there is a disregard by the international community to develop

post-colonial states. As many authors argue this ignorance was more or less an effort for the

international community to maintain the current system of nation-states and maintain an orderly

“political map”.

The United Nations was not the only international organization to enforce the

continuation of colonial boundaries for new states, The Organization of African Unity,

established in 1963, also created a strong mandate to prevent challenges to the state system by

Blichar Jr. 10

keeping current borders intact (Christopher, 93). Often ethnic tensions were suppressed by the

organization in cases such as the Biafra independence movement in 1967 and the Katanga

movement in 1960. Authors like Christopher would point out that continuation by the

international community to support colonial borders and halt dissolution of post-colonial states,

is the factor that contributes to state failure rather than state success. The literature argues that in

most cases decolonization happened so fast that development of post-colonial states was almost

impossible, leading to poor administration and unstable internal conditions as ethnic groups who

were already forced to share the same territory began fighting amongst one another (Herbst,

122).

Post-colonial states that have become failures have been often defined as “quasi-states”.

A quasi-state is one in which the government has lost effective control over its use of force and

its ability to govern its territory and people but is still considered to be sovereign by the

international community (Christopher, 94). Some authors would argue that lack of a central

government and political organization are not the only factors that contribute to state failure

(Baker, 132). What authors like Baker point out is that many failing post-colonial countries

maintain their internationally recognized institutions, borders, and sovereign authority. Many of

these states retain statehood primarily by being recognized in de jure terms rather than de facto,

and therefore are defined in international terms rather than empirically (Baker, 133 ). Essentially,

the international integrity of these post-colonial states are ensured by international recognition,

which prevents for the break of any post-colonial state from taking place. Inadvertently, many

authors like Baker would argue that this push by the international community to retain the clean

drawn borders results in continued conflict and upheaval in many of these states.

Blichar Jr. 11

Throughout much of the literature regarding the Interstate Approach, the key assumption

that most authors have made is that the neglect of the international community to develop post-

colonial states or allow them to break-up has caused more harm leading these states to failure.

The push for the international community to maintain the colonial borders, has allowed for

conflict within these states to continue and create environments where an ineffective government

and ethnic tension can persist. With that in mind it becomes clear that both approaches in the

literature review analyze both the internal factors, primarily ethnic conflict, and external factors,

primarily the international community, to understand the persistence of failing post-colonial

states.

Formulating a Theory and a Hypothesis

In regards to the factors that contribute to the failing post-colonial states of primarily

Africa and Asia, much of the literature points to two approaches that offer the factors that create

these “failed states”. The first approach deals with intrastate factors, primarily those that occur

within these states, which create an atmosphere for conflict and failure. The end result from this

approach is that ethnicity and ethnic conflict are the factors in which governments of post-

colonial states fail and lead to dissolution. The other approach that has been offered revolved

around interstate factors, primarily focusing on the international community’s commitment to

maintain the colonial borders which results in unstable and artificially constructed states.

It is important to note however, that neither of the approaches and much of the literature

does not attempt to integrate these two in any way. After analyzing what many authors on the

subject wrote, it seems that they did not make a linkage between the preservation of colonial

borders and the ongoing intrastate conflicts that may result from that forced system. This indeed

seems to present a gap in the literature and where another approach may be developed to fill in

Blichar Jr. 12

these gaps. The best way to truly answer the question of why do post-colonial states fail, it is

important to analyze both the internal and external factors that lead to said failure. With that, the

most logical route to take is to combine both the Intrastate Approach and the Interstate Approach

to accurately determine the overall factors that create state failure. What this suggests is that a

new approach is needed, a proposed Intersectional Approach that would connect the interstate

factors along with the intrastate factors in a cause-effect manner.

Intersectional Approach

In order to provide validity to this new approach it would be important to utilize the

literature that has been discussed to provide connections between the original two approaches. It

is important to look back at one of the earlier statements made by the literature regarding the

governance of the colonial in many parts of Africa and Asia prior to decolonization. Many times

the colonial powers often relied on indigenous power structures to govern their territories which

resulted in one particular ethnic group to wield governmental powers over other ethnic groups of

the territory (Ake, 2).

This is important to note because it speaks to the interstate approach overall by harkening

back to the creation of the colonial borders themselves. The was an event known as the Scramble

for Africa which began in the late 19th century, an event where major European powers,

including Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and others drew up the borders for

colonies. What is important to note here is that many times the borders were drawn up without

regards to ethnic and cultural composition of the area (Michalopoulos, 3). Ultimately, Africa was

divided up arbitrarily create an environment where ethnic groups that had never worked together

before had to now live under the same rule.

Blichar Jr. 13

Taking that very fact forward, the colonial powers reliance on a particular governance

system of one ethnic group in a region that now included various other ethnic groups allowed for

an atmosphere of animosity and struggle for equal say in colonial affairs by those who were

being colonized. When connecting this with the interstate approach one can see why the push for

the United Nations and the international community to maintain colonial borders is problematic.

However, one might ask why this then ties into the intrastate approach.

As described in the intrastate approach at the emergence of independence for these post-

colonial states in, many of the ethnic groups had to compete against one another for political

power and control over the government (Ake, 2). Other groups out of fear of oppression by the

majority ethnic group, created militias to protect the lands in which they inhabited seeking

autonomy and independence. However, according the interstate approach the push by the

international community to maintain the colonial borders as they stand prevents groups from

declaring their own sovereignty based on ethnicity. This is an almost irony as much of the

Blichar Jr. 14

nation-states on the European continent today were formed on the basis of ethnic backgrounds.

Take Yugoslavia for example, many of the states that broke away from the overall union were

centered on a specific ethnic group whether they be the Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina or

the Croats in Croatia.

However, sovereignty for many African and even Middle Eastern states is not based on

ethnicity but rather the colonial borders that were drawn up by the European powers themselves.

What some could argue is that this forced integration by the international community to keep

these post-colonial states together actually feeds into the instability of the state’s domestic

functions as well. As ethnic groups are unable to break off and declare nations based on ethnic

background as grounds for self-determination, they will seek to take control of the next best

option available to them. That option usually becomes the central government of the post-

colonial state itself. Infighting among these ethnic groups creates an atmosphere for a consistent

failing government to control its territory and people. Essentially now these states would fit the

definition of a failed states due to the factors that contributed to its failure. However, in this

example the forced colonial borders by the international community only accelerated the

constant ethnic conflict within these states.

What the Intersectional Approach ultimately does is take both the interstate approach and

the intrastate approach to explain a cause and effect mechanism for the factors that contribute to

state failure of post-colonial states. It is the colonial borders themselves and the support to

maintain them that contributes to the internal factors that create ethnic conflict and struggle for

either independence or state power. When first looking into the matter of why post-colonial

states fail in the first place it was important to analyze both the external and internal factors that

contribute to that failure. However, with this approach that is being proposed, it makes the

Blichar Jr. 15

combination of both factors important to understanding why post-colonial states fail rather than

looking at them from two different approaches.

Conclusion

To conclude, our question was to ask what factors contribute the failure of post-colonial states.

Prior analyzing the literature that would answer this question it was important to note that the

factors that would have to be analyzed were external and internal. Much of the literature

supported those very assumptions about what types of factors contributed to post-colonial state

failure. The literature offered two approaches on the subject. The Intrastate Approach, involved

the internal factors that contributed to failure of post-colonial states and argued that many of

these states were failing due to ethnicity and ethnic conflict. This ethnic conflict focused on

either attaining independence or fighting for governmental power over the territory and its

population. The second approach offered by the literature was the Interstate Approach. It

outlined the external factors that contribute to post-colonial state failure and pointed to the

international community’s commitment to maintain the colonial borders that were drawn up prior

to independence of many African, Asian, and Middle Eastern states. Much of this tied into

answering the questioning however there was a gap in the literature.

What the literature neglected is how both approaches intermingle. With the introduction

of a new approach through what was found in the literature, it was concluded that an

Intersectional Approach was necessary in order to fully grasp the factors that contribute to post-

colonial state failure. What the Intersectional Approach does is point to the arbitrary division of

Africa during colonization that created territories where ethnic groups were forced to integrate.

The struggle for these ethnic groups during the decolonization process only heightened the

tension for governmental control or self-determination, creating instability. However, at this

Blichar Jr. 16

point it is important to note that the factor of maintaining the colonial borders is important as it

forces already fighting ethnic groups to continue on the status quo lending to more instability.

Ultimately, the third approach points out the major flaw in the international system to keep

colonial borders and the conflict that it may inadvertently kindle domestically in these post-

colonial states that can lead them to failure.

Blichar Jr. 17

Bibliography

Ake, Claude. “The Problem of Ethnicities in Africa.” Transformation 22 (1993): 1-14.

Baker, Bruce. “African Anarchy: Is It the States, Regimes, or Societies That Are Collapsing.”

Politics 19.3 (1999): 131-38.

Brooks, Rosa. “Failed States, or the States as Failure?” The University of Chicago Law Review

Autumn 72.4 (2005): 1159-196.

Christopher, A. J. “’Nation-States’, ‘Quasi-States’, and the ‘Collapsed-States’ in Contemporary

Africa.” GeoJournal 43.1 (1997): 91-97.

Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. London: Penguin, 2005.

Foreign Policy. “The Failed States Index.” Foreign Policy 149 (2005): 56-65

Foreign Policy, and Fund for Peace. The Failed States Index 2011. Digital image. Fund for

Peace, 2011.

Henderson, Errol. “Civil War in the Post-Colonial World 1946-1992.” Journal of Peace

Research 37.3 (2000): 275-99.

Heraclides, Alex. “Secessionist Minorities and External Involvement.” International

Organization 44.3 (1990): 341-78.

Herbst, Jeffrey. “Responding to State Failure in Africa.” International Security 21.3 (1997): 120-

44.

Ikelegebe, Augustine. “State, Ethnic Militias, and Conflict in Nigeria.” Canadian Journal of

African Studies 39.3 (2005): 450-516.

Blichar Jr. 18

Jinadu, Adele. “Explaining and Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa: Towards a Cultural Theory

of Democracy.” African Journal of Political Science 9.1 (2004): 1-26.

Michalopoulos, Stelios. The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa. Working paper no.

17620. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011. NBER Working Paper

Series.

Murdock, George. Ethnic Homelands and National Borders. Digital image. University of

Pittsburgh, 1981.

Nag, Sejal. “Nehru and the Nagas: Minority Nationalism and the Post-Colonial State.” Economic

and Political Weekly 44.49 (2009): 48-55.

Rotberg, Robert. When States Fail” Causes and Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 2004.

Schultz, Richard Jr. “State Disintegration and Ethnic Conflict: A Framework for Analysis.”

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 541.Small Wars

(1995): 75-88.

Smith, Dan. “Reviewed Work: Between Development and Destruction: An Enquiry into the

Causes of Conflict in Post-Colonial States.” Journal of Peace Research 35.4 (1998): 520.

Veit, Raphael. “Iraq: Failed State of Phoenix.” AQ: Australian Quarterly 76.3 (2004): 15-19.

Wade, Robert. “Failing States and Cumulative Causation in the World System.” International

Political Science Review 26.1 (2005): 17-36.