A fairly widespread conviction among concerned citizens, including the President, is that if T&T is not exactly a failed state, we are in real danger of becoming one. But what makes a state qualify as failed or failing? What are the indicators of failure?

A failed state is defined today as one whose central government is so weak or ineffective it can no longer ensure the basic security of its citizens. It has only nominal military or police control over its territory, and among other key factors (of which more below) judicial ineffectualness (in view, for instance, of widespread silencing and killing of witnesses) means that uniform enforcement of law does not exist.

A failed state is a condition of state collapse. The state can no longer reproduce the conditions of its own existence.

The opposite of “failed” is an “enduring” state, though the dividing line between the two is neither absolute nor easily ascertained at the margins. Even in a failed state, some systems “endure;” local state institutions may still function with effectiveness, while central administrative systems founder.

Between the polarities of “failed” and “enduring” a broad middle exists, a continuum from fragile and worrisome to moderate and sustainable. T&T may exist more at the fragile and worrisome end, but this is no reason for comfort. Failed states never failed overnight; and total collapse is never sudden. As Emily Dickinson wrote in “Crumbling is not an instant’s Act,” her words equally applicable to institutions as to individuals: “Ruin is formal, devil’s work/Consecutive and slow/Fail in an instant, no man did/ Slipping is Crash’s law.”

Since 2005, a US think tank, the Fund for Peace, and the influential journal, Foreign Policy, have published an annual index called the Failed State Index. The states assessed are determined according to UN membership, and ranking is based on the total score of 12 indicators of state instability (four social, two economic and six political). In what follows, I will briefly review each of these indicators with comment appropriate, as I see it, to T&T. Readers may of course make their own judgments.

n First, demographic pressures. This refers to pressures from high population density relative to food supply and other sustaining resources. It also includes pressures from population settlement patterns, access to transportation outlets, control of religious and historical sites etc. Not applicable.

n Secondly, massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples. Not applicable.

n Thirdly, a legacy of vengeance-seeking grievances: based on recent or past injustice, which could date back centuries, including atrocities committed with impunity against communities or specific groups singled out by state authority or dominant groups. Again not applicable.

n Fourth, chronic and sustained human flight: both the brain drain of professionals and the voluntary emigration of the middle class. Minimally applicable. Such “human flight” as we have experienced in Trinidad in recent years can hardly be considered “chronic and sustained.”

n Fifth, uneven economic development along group lines: determined by group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status. Also measured by group-based poverty levels, infant mortality rates, and education levels.

One gets closer to home with this indicator. A recent (Nacta) poll showed the dissatisfaction of the “lower classes” with the distribution of the oil and gas patrimony.

The poll revealed a “democratic deficit” between official presumption and popular experience.

n Sixth, sharp and/or severe economic decline: measured by a progressive economic decline of the society as a whole; a sudden drop in trade revenue and foreign investment; collapse or devaluation of the national currency, and a growth of hidden economies, including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight; failure of the State to pay salaries or meet its ordinary economic obligations. Not applicable, though how far oil and gas are generally appreciated as diminishing resources, capable of sharp decline, is not clear.

n Seven, criminalisation and/or delegitimisation of the State: endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites and resistance to transparency and accountability; widespread loss of confidence in state institutions and processes. 

Here again, much closer to home, but what’s the extent of applicability? Levels of corruption may thought to be high and transparency and accountability unwilling, but are we at a stage of “widespread loss of confidence in state institutions and processes?” I am not sure that’s the case.

n Eight, progressive deterioration of public services: the disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from crime and violence, and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation etc.

Here not only close to home but our most basic apprehension, though recent official statements have emphasised that the escalating murder rate is mainly (only?) an index of internecine gang warfare. The implication, oddly enough, is that ordinary, non-gang-related citizens should feel safe.

n Ninth, widespread violation of human rights: the emergence of authoritarianism, with the suspension and manipulation of the constitution. Abuse of legal, political, and social rights.  Not applicable

n Tenth, security apparatus as “state within a state;” emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias to terrorise political opponents and other “enemies” etc. Not applicable.

n Eleventh, the rise of “factionalised elites”: the fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions among group lines; the use of nationalistic rhetoric to serve exclusive communal solidarity, eg “ethnic cleansing,” and “defending the faith.” Not applicable.

n Twelfth, intervention of other states or external factors: military or paramilitary interference in the affairs of a state to affect the internal balance of power etc. Not applicable.

Valuations in the index range from “alert” to “warning,” “moderate,” “sustainable”—and “failed.” One should bear in mind that a “total” score may mean a total from preponderant negatives in the terms of some, not all, indicators. Where do clear negatives according to indicators five, seven, and eight leave us? I think judgments of “failure” are perhaps too summary. In my view, we are closer to “warning” than to “failed.”