The failure of the State

There is a literary aspect and perspective to every field of study in the world, thus the reason why every research paper has a specific chapter, “Review of Relevant Literature” that covers all the salient material written with regard to the subject under study. We hardly question what the idea of a state means because we are more interested in being patriotic citizens. We know that we have ‘our land’ or ‘the land of our forefathers’ but we do not know how it is run. The iron curtain set by modern political governance has ensured that the only role the citizens ever get to play in the organ of governance called state rule is that of the rallying voter that gets to meet their leadership only at the lobbies and not anymore thereafter. This means that one has to question what the idea and the ideal of state rule means at certain points in time. The aim is to understand what nationhood really means, for a nation draws its essence from the state. Without the state, the idea of law and order does not exist, and without these two, all else collapses into chaos. This raises the question: What is a state? The state is defined by the Britannica Encyclopaedia as the political organisation of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of ‘government’. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of ‘order and security’; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty. The state consists, most broadly, of the agreement of the individuals on the means whereby disputes are settled in the form of laws. The question of what a state is one to which the answers are many but one of the most precise is provided by George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegels who defines the state as the entity formed when men act as moral agents, when conflict ceases, and their aims as citizens coincide, that is to say, they work towards a singular goal instead of being divided into varied polarised groups that end up having different interests that may at the end of the day lead to chaos. By subordinating himself to the state, the individual is able to realise a synthesis between the values of family and the needs of economic life. To Hegel, the state is the culmination of moral action, where freedom of choice leads to the unity of the rational will, and all parts of society are nourished within the health of the whole of society which is in current terms termed as the ‘welfare’ of the people. Historical definition of what a state is by Plato and Aristotle speaks of, “the polis, or city-state, as an ideal form of association, in which the whole community’s religious, cultural, political, and economic needs could be satisfied.” This city-state is an entity that is characterised primarily by its self-sufficiency, and was seen by Aristotle as the means of developing morality in the human character. The Greek idea of what a state is corresponds accurately to the modern concept of the nation, that is, a population of a fixed area that shares a common language, culture, and history. This outlook is however not written in stone, as there are new realities such as migration across state lines that lead to the formation of new communities within the one state. The state as an organ in this instance has to find the balance, that is, establish one common thread of order that balances the differences between the older citizens and the newer citizens. This new phenomenon is unfolding with each passing day, but the reality is that the new has to follow the old to avoid instances of chaos where the new order is seen to be antagonising the old order. The issue of what the state is gets to be defined by the politicians in their lobbying speeches, but it often loses meaning and leads to dissatisfaction on the part of the ruled once the lobbying politician assumes office and becomes a member of the ruling class. The lead causes include partisanship, nepotism, corruption, and failure by the politician to understand one’s role as soon as they assume the office of government. This is clearer in the case of the state where political affiliation is misinterpreted into polarisation as is the case with Lesotho at this point in time. State and the government are there to serve the common interests of all the citizens, not just the needs of the party followers. A state is deemed a failure once it begins to be one-sided in the serving of the needs and the demands of the citizenry. Since the end of the Cold War, the international community has become increasingly preoccupied with the phenomenon usually named “state failure”, because state failure causes a wide range of humanitarian, legal, and security problems. Recent examples of failed states are familiar to all of us, from the total collapse of state institutions in Somalia and the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia to the varied crises in Rwanda, Haiti, Liberia, Congo, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. Robert I. Rotberg addresses the issue of state failure in plain terms, defining it in the words: Nation states fail when they are consumed by internal violence and cease delivering positive political goods to their inhabitants. Their governments lose credibility, and the continuing nature of the particular nation state itself becomes questionable and illegitimate in the hearts and minds of its citizens. This is due to the fact that nation-states are established to provide a decentralised method of delivering political goods to the public made up of persons living within designated borders or country parameters. Having inherited, assumed, or replaced the monarchs of yore, modern states answer the concerns and demands of their citizenries and not only their political adherents and affiliates. The ideal of the state is there to serve as a tool that buffers and mediates between the challenges of the immediate and international arena for the benefit of the citizens. This pattern is closely adhered to the dynamism found in external and external economic, political, and social realities. States succeed or fail across all or some of these dimensions, that is, a well-functioning state is able to address the economic, political and social realities of its citizens without bias. This means that effective state rule means that those in government (not ‘in power’ as has become the normal speak in the fracas of modern political state rule) address the needs of the people, the most important among these being the provision of human security. A state is not a state if it cannot guarantee tangible or intangible security for its citizens. These forms of security encompass expectations and preconceived obligations by the citizens that inform the local political culture. The case of the promises made by the lobbying politician to the party followers does not just end with pre-election campaigns. It actually carries further to the point where the lobbying politician assumes the office of government, because the people actually vote in good faith with the hope that the political leader will carry their hopes into the Promised Land envisioned in the campaign speeches. The promises of the political leader and the expectations of the voting citizen together give content to the social contract between the ruler and the ruled that forms the gist of the relationship between the current regime in government and the citizens. This relationship is what determines and informs the interactions between the government and the citizens, that is, whether they are on a peaceful and moral basis or whether they are on a violent and subhuman (immoral or unreasonable basis). The maintenance of this relationship is what keeps the state true to its form and it leads to other undesirable forms if it is abandoned. Dictatorships, autocracies, and other conservative forms of governance are born out of self-interest, that is, they depart from the original definition of the state that posits ‘welfare for all’ policies to the debased mentalities that serve the interests of a minute minority to the detriment of the larger part of the population. It is in this instance where one finds the minute disintegrating further to the point where state failure is plain for all to see: where individualism becomes a new accepted normal and the public’s tangible and intangible safety and security concerns are not addressed by the government. Where the state fails to address the needs of the masses, individuals will often go out and try to get what the state cannot provide alone. This is seen almost exclusively in special or particular circumstances where individuals attempt to secure themselves economically, politically and socially. The common characteristics of this behaviour are clearly evident with the emergence of groups of individuals that band together to organise and purchase goods or services that ‘maximise their sense of security’. This phenomenon is essentially the sign of the beginning of the idea of class that is sectarian in nature, leading to a ‘we and them’ type of attitude. The development of sects and conservative mindsets traditionally seems to hold the notion of self-sufficiency for the adherents; however, this notion of security is temporary. The conservative sects are usually under constant threat as other groups within the larger mass also begin to form into other groups and usually, this leads to increased levels of polarisation. The pattern these increasing divisions follow is similar to a community living in a single room that never stops dividing it until there is no room to move for either the owner or anyone living in such a room. The reality, however, is that individuals and groups cannot easily or effectively substitute their private security for the full spectrum of public security which is the more effective way of ensuring welfare for all. What begins to form are mentalities and deeds of buccaneering pirates that see other groups as their quarry and not as fellow citizens. Robert I. Rotberg states that, “The state’s prime function is to provide that political good of security—to prevent cross-border invasions and infiltrations, and any loss of territory; to eliminate domestic threats to or attacks upon the national order and social structure; to prevent crime and any related dangers to domestic human security; and to enable citizens to resolve their disputes within the state and with their fellow inhabitants without recourse to arms or other forms of physical coercion.” We have begun to see an increase in incidents of violence as individuals or groups of individuals begin to scramble for safety in the midst of one of the worst economic depressions in history caused by the Coronavirus pandemic. With jobs on the line and some out of work, incidents of crime and domestic violence are on the increase. There is a sense of suppressed apprehension and anxiety that is increasing with the realities of increased poverty and unemployment the pandemic came with. The state should be providing a sense of social and economic security on the political front, but what one sees unfolding is contrary to this noble notion of peace and security needed to guide the nation through this hard period. It does not make sense therefore when the security sector is ordered by the government to violently quash a protest by the youth that have become anxious in the light of the realities of increasing poverty and unemployment levels in the state. Humanity, the basis for reason, which is also the basis in the formation of what is termed the state, should come to the fore at this point in time. Bullets, batons and knuckledusters will further polarise an already divided nation. The political leadership should understand that the realities down here can only be dealt with effectively if the individual in office at the house on top of the Maseru hill empathetically understands the realities of the society in the valley. We should at all costs avoid reaching a point where we speak of each other as ‘we and them’, with the ruling class forgetting that they got into the ‘stilted’ (because they can fall anytime) positions that they got elected into by the ruled who cast the ballot. The reality is that there has been an extended iron curtain between the ruling class and the ruled in this country. It will eventually lead to the failure of this state if it is not torn down at this point in time. If you believe it not, just ask yourself these questions: how many political parties do we have? What does it mean in terms of the unity of the state? How can we reverse the current scenario where division is a chasm deep and ravine wide? Be frank in your answers to self…or else deal with the reality of this Lesotho being treated as a perpetual beggar and weakling by a South Africa Basotho sweated and toiled and bled for in the years of the long Apartheid night. Tšepiso S. Mothibi