South Sudan: Fragile and Resilient

In July 2011, South Sudan gained political independence. With the exception of Eritrea, no other African state has been created in the post-colonial period (i.e., since the 1950s). South Sudan now faces a long and difficult road to stability and prosperity.

Like many of the former European colonies in Africa – especially the Belgian and Portuguese territories – South Sudan’s independence inheritance was limited. In the case of South Sudan, governments in Khartoum systematically marginalized this geographically peripheral region. Some basic data tell a grim tale of under-development:

  • Only about 25 percent of the young state’s population is literate. Most developing countries have figures in the range of 50 to 80 percent.
  • South Sudan possesses a physical area larger than France. The new country, though, has virtually no paved roads. The longest stretch – connecting the capital of Juba to Uganda – is only about 100 kilometers.
  • Less than 1 percent of the population has access to electricity. That’s right, only a tiny fraction of South Sudanese can count on reliable access to a power grid. The 1 percent figure presumably does not include those who have access to a generator.
  • Maternal and infant mortality rates are falling, but they are shockingly high. The improved figures (since independence) are: 76 infants deaths per one thousand and 2,054 maternal deaths for every one hundred thousand births. This maternal mortality rate is the worst in the world.
  • A disputed border with Sudan and internal conflicts have led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands.

Yet, the new country has weathered its early independence phase better than many predicted. This assessment is especially remarkable given the long standoff with Sudan over oil transit fees. And South Sudan does have key natural resources other than oil. A high percentage of arable land, fairly dependable fresh water supplies, and ecotourism potential are a few of the country’s key natural assets.

The world’s newest state, though, is landlocked and situated in a highly volatile region of Africa. The Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo are both neighboring failed states. Adjacent portions of Uganda, Kenya, and Sudan have also experienced armed conflict or communal unrest in recent years. The South Sudanese people will require much more resilience in the years ahead.

The Fall of Bangui: State Failure in the Central African Republic

On the Sudan - Central African Republic Border

The Central African Republic is located in one of the most conflict-prone regions of Africa, which includes Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo credit: hdptcar (via Flickr, Creative Commons license).

Over the weekend of March 23-24, the brittle government of President Francois Bozize was finally overthrown. A coalition of rebels known as Seleka has now seized control of the capital city, Bangui. Bozize and many senior figures from his government have fled the Central African Republic (CAR). This new development re-confirms the country’s status as a failed state. Here are two key indicators of that status.

  1. Limited rule of law. The ousted president, Bozize, came to power through a military coup in 2003. Despite CNN’s designation of last weekend’s change of government as a “coup,” the successful rebellion has led to another unconstitutional change of government. In response to the illegal action, the African Union has suspended the membership of the Central African Republic. And, not surprisingly, the new Seleka government has suspended the country’s constitution, promising free and fair elections within a few years.
  2. A stark core-periphery pattern. As I have previously written, the divide between the CAR’s capital city and its hinterlands is immense and longstanding. The core region around the capital has been the main focus of government authority, while the outlying regions – especially in the North and the East – have largely existed outside national government influence. In the past decade, these “ungoverned spaces” have been regionally important as fighters and weapons have flowed across porous borders with Chad, Sudan, and the DRC. If the rebels are successful in retaining control of the capital, will they be any better at forging a geographically unified, well-functioning country?

Outside of obvious concerns about an intensifying humanitarian crisis in the CAR, it does not seem that the international community is all that concerned about the situation there. Notably, France did very little to oppose the fall of Bangui. Yet, we should applaud the African Union (AU) for quickly acting to suspend the CAR and sanction the country’s new leaders. For all of its dysfunction, the AU has at least created a regional political culture that stigmatizes unconstitutional changes of government. If only the AU would get tougher with African dictators that run sham democracies.

Measuring Corruption (in Failed States)

Earlier this month, the respected NGO Transparency International released its annual survey of public sector corruption around the world. The Perceptions of Corruption Index is the most influential effort to assess the relative cleanness of governance throughout the world.

First, here are a few highlights from the 2012 survey, which assigns a score of 0 to 100 to each state, with 0 representing a highly corrupt public sector and 100 representing an extremely clean public sector.

Anti-corruption poster in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Photo credit: Raymond June (via Flickr, Creative Commons license).

Anti-corruption poster in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Photo credit: Raymond June (via Flickr, Creative Commons license).

The cleanest clusters and states are: Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, and Canada. Others scoring fairly well are Chile, Uruguay, Japan, the United States, and a few other European countries.

When examined by world region, Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Russia, Ukraine and the “-stans” – fare the worst for public corruption. Ninety-five percent of these countries score below 50 points out of 100. (For comparison, 70 percent of the world’s states also score below 50.) Sub-Saharan Africa has the next worst scores overall, with 90 percent of the region’s states scoring below 50 points.  The Middle East and North Africa ranks as the third most corrupt region in the world. And the Americas and Asia Pacific are slightly below the world mark, with 66 percent and 68 percent, respectively, of countries scoring below 50 points.

Figures for the world’s key failed states are fairly predictable. The ten lowest ranking countries – meaning those where bribery, rent-seeking behavior, and corruption are entrenched – include the following failed states: Afghanistan, Haiti, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Somalia, and Sudan. Other critically weak and failed states score very poorly on the survey, including: Chad, the DRC, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, and Pakistan.

But how do we know that these scores are valid? Transparency International freely acknowledges that they are assessing perceptions of corruption, and not absolute levels of public sector impropriety. Just a cursory look at the summary index map reveals an  old pattern, with Western countries judged as less corrupt and non-Western states labeled more corrupt. Perhaps the old process of Orientalism is at play in this influential global assessment.

A more careful look at the numbers, though, reveals some subtle differences that matter. In Africa, Botswana has a score that is identical to Spain’s and a bit better than Portugal’s. Ghana’s mediocre score is meaningfully better than those of Italy and Greece. Chile and Uruguay have similar scores to that for the United States.

What are your thoughts about this survey? Do you give much credibility to these scores and rankings?