Unfortunately, the number of “failed states” seems to be growing among the 130 countries of the developing world. The notion of failed states isn’t necessarily related to the absence of democracy–after all, Tanzania and Pakistan were nominally democracies. It isn’t tied to free markets–according to Transparency International, the Berlin-based watchdog, more than half of the world’s dozen most corrupt nations enjoy capitalist-style, free-enterprise economies. The developing world’s nations largely “fail” because they lack sturdy public institutions that engender the essential national requirement for expediting social and economic progress: accountability.
In failed states, it’s always someone else’s fault: the CIA, neighbors with hostile designs, the heritage of colonialism, ethnic miscreants, a discriminatory global power system. Nyerere was not slow to cite the “mess” the British left behind; Sharif seldom missed an opportunity to chide India for alleged interference in Pakistan’s domestic affairs. In Sri Lanka–once a model for sustainable development–a deadly civil war continues, with the majority Sinhalese accusing minority Tamils of wanting to balkanize the island nation. In Colombia, drug lords seem to be at the root of all malevolence–as if corrupt politicians bore no responsibility and were injured innocents. To be sure, Nyerere–one of a handful of charismatic figures who drove colonial powers out of Africa–was an honest man with a modest lifestyle and unassuming manner. That’s saying a lot in a continent whose modern history is replete with horrifying instances of rapacious leaders who raided state treasuries and brutalized the citizenry. But, as New York University’s Ralph Buultjens puts it, “Nyerere was ultimately a tragic figure who failed, despite his good will and vision, to establish any workable model of political economy for poorer countries.”
It may be untimely to say unkind things about a departed titan, but consider Nyerere’s legacy: Tanzania’s population, which doubled to 20 million during the 24 years that Nyerere held power, is today poorer than ever before, its agriculture-based economy a shambles due to Nyerere’s authoritarian efforts at social engineering.
And even Nyerere wasn’t beyond a boondoggle or two: after he stepped down from the presidency in 1985, he joined the international commissiontariat–the self-selected group of well-connected people who form panels on global issues such as poverty and convene conferences at elegant resorts to produce flatulent declarations. Indeed, Nyerere, with the generous financial aid of Nordic and other donors, established a permanent “South Center” in the developing world’s favored metropolis, Geneva.
But no amount of blame-apportioning by Nyerere-style commissions typically scold the West for neglecting developing countries. Translation: You should give more aid and transfer more technology to poor nations. Aid and technology transfers notwithstanding, more than 65 developing countries–half the number of the world’s poor nations–have become basket cases. They have few prospects of escaping dependency on foreign aid, which is increasingly difficult to obtain as donors are becoming more circumspect about the usefulness of their development dollars. What’s known as Official Development Assistance from the 29 donor countries is expected to fall to a record low in 1999–barely $45 billion, a 10 percent drop from last year’s. Lending and foreign investment from commercial sources is slowing, too, especially as poor countries’ external debts mount (now $1.3 trillion); meanwhile their foreign-exchange earnings aren’t growing fast enough to keep pace with debt service and social expenditures.
The demise of democracy last week in Pakistan demonstrated the deepening plight of failed states. Despite years of talk and insipid efforts at economic development, the country is worse off today than it’s ever been. High illiteracy and infant-mortality rates, increasing indebtedness, profligate politicians, military expenditures that consume a disproportionate share of the national budget and the reckless pursuit of nuclear arms–all have dragged the country into its pitiful predicament. Anti-Indian rhetoric and fundamentalist Islamic slogans merely distract attention from the sorry realities of a fragmenting society. Says Buultjens: “After 50 years of independence, Pakistan has still to make up its mind whether it is a Middle Eastern-type authoritarian state or a South Asian-style democracy. Until this is resolved, there’s little hope for stability.” Similarly, until failed states grasp the nettle of contemporary global geoeconomic realities–democratic governance lodged in public institutions that work with accountability–the prospects for the developing world are grim. Finger-pointing and blame-shifting will only produce more Pakistans and Tanzanias–a far cry from the ideas and ideals that inspired these countries at their birth, not very long ago.
