Which is the reason why the Failed States Index that the Fund for Peace publishes annually is now called the Fragile States Index. But what’s in a name? That which we called “failure” (and now call “fragility”) would remain as distressing by any other name. The problem for the citizens of a failed/fragile state is that such a state can remain dysfunctional for a very long time, with resultant increases in misery and hopelessness for its citizens. It is worth observing that the states that head the FPI Index, ie those with a Fragility Index of over 100, have by and large been the same ones year on year.
And, of course, our own beloved Pakistan has regularly featured on that list. The fact that, in the report of the Fund for Peace for 2014, Pakistan has moved ‘up’ from twelfth place to tenth place, is certainly uncomfortable, particularly considering that, with the re-establishment of constitutional order during the last government, we had risen from the all-time lows reached during the Musharraf years. But surely, one would think, with this first transition from a full-term elected government to another elected government, the outlook should have been more positive. Arguably, then, there are still more fundamental steps that need to be taken to reduce this country’s fragility. Certainly, the institutional disruption that will follow from some political parties exercising what they disingenuously call their “democratic right of protest” will not help matters.
[quote]The institutional disruption that will follow from some political parties exercising what they disingenuously call their 'democratic right of protest' will not help matters[/quote]
Let us for a moment look at how the Fund for Peace has evaluated us now. Out of a total of 178 countries analysed, 16 have a Fragility Index of over 100. The bottom (top?) of this list, the 16 most fragile states, features severely troubled South Sudan. This replaces Somalia, which is now at second place. These are followed in order by Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan, Yemen, Haiti, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Guinea, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Syria, and Guinea-Bissau.
These rankings are developed by the Fund for Peace on the basis of 12 indicators of state vulnerability. Let us see how Pakistan has been evaluated against these indicators.
There are two economic indicators: (i) sharp and/or severe economic decline, and (ii) uneven economic development. On the basis of these criteria, Pakistan stacks up as something well short of disastrous. Our score of 7.5 on the count of economic decline puts Pakistan ahead of 13 of these most fragile countries and behind only Syria and Iraq. As regards relative evenness of development along group or regional lines, Pakistan is rated at 7.6, below only Syria of these 16 states. So, while there is little to be proud of in terms of Pakistan’s economic achievements, we see that there are others with much worse records than ours.
But here the good (or not so bad) news ends. The four social indicators by the Fund are (i) demographic pressures relative to food supply and resources; (ii) massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples; (iii) legacy of atrocities committed with impunity against specific groups; and (iv) chronic and sustained brain drain of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents. Pakistan’s rating of 8.8 on demographic pressures in relation to food supply places it in the bottom 7 countries and has dropped significantly from past years. This appallingly poor score should be an alarm signal, pointing to the kind of starvation-level situations developing in parts of country and among disadvantaged economic groups – particularly given our extraordinary rate of population growth. Certainly, the economic strutting of a government obsessed with the glitter of bullet trains seems terribly out of place.
In terms of movement of refugees and displaced persons, Pakistan’s rating of 8.8 is unsurprisingly bad…in the stellar company of such disastrous cases as South Sudan, Somalia, DR Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan, and Syria. Pakistan’s score of 6.9 on brain-drain is better than any of the other 15 bottom countries and is streets better than in past years, if only because other countries are now reluctant to accept Pakistani immigrants or asylum seekers. However, our score of 10.0 for group paranoia and violence against groups is the very worst in the list, alongside overtly genocidal South Sudan, Iraq and Syria.
The six political indicators are (i) endemic corruption of ruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation; (ii) deterioration of public services; (iii) widespread violation of human rights, emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution; (iv) security apparatus becoming a ‘state within a state’; (v) use of jingoistic rhetoric by ruling elites in terms of communal irredentism, eg “defending the faith”; and (vi) intervention of other states or of external political actors.
Pakistan has extremely poor ratings for most of these. In terms of corruption of elites, history of military rule, use of nationalistic rhetoric and intervention by external political actors, Pakistan’s rankings are amongst the worst. And, on one score, that of secretive, unaccountable security services, Pakistan’s appalling 9.9 is exceeded only by Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
To conclude these rankings on a positive note, Pakistan’s score of 7.6 on deterioration of governmental services is better than most of the other bottom 16 countries. It seems that the so far continuing growth of institutions like an elected parliament, an independent judiciary and a free press, by bringing public services under some kind of systemic scrutiny, has given Pakistan a boost right out of the mire of state failure on at least this score.
After all, it is precisely the presence of these institutions of a free and civilized society, however incompetently or foolishly we may run them, which saves Pakistan from falling into conditions as frightful as those in South Sudan, Somalia, etc. And it these that are coming under threat from confrontational, and potentially violent, politics parading as a so-called “democratic” right of protest.