I will show how the term ”failed state” is highly problematic both empirically and theoretically. In the following I will look at the origins of the failed state concept, and will thereafter discuss Weber’s famous definition of the state and its implications for the “failed state” concept. Additionally, I would argue that the failed state discourse is part and parcel of Western countries’ securitization on certain states, putting all emphasis on the “failed”, subsequently leading to biased depictions which works self-reinforcing and in symbiosis with the failed state paradigm itself. I also embrace the same scholars’ criticism of the discourse for having an underlying dogmatic assumption and wishful expectation that all states sooner or later will adopt a model of Western liberal democracy. In this paper I will suggest that the failed state label is very little enlightening, and I agree with Hagmann & Hoehne ( 2009, 44) who point out that “the state failure debate is confronted by empirical, analytical, normative and practical shortcomings of considerable proportion”. To what extent is the “failed state” label suitable to describe an African state – in this case Somalia, how is it used and what are the main problems connected with the applying of this label?
In this paper I will discuss the following question: Subsequently, African states are described with negative adjectives such as “weak” or “failed”. When accounts of African states are made, most often they are compared with the Western idea of a perfect Weber-style state.
0 kommentar(er)
