Paradox of State Fragility: Exploring the Role of International Structures in the Context of Bangladesh

Abstract

The seemingly universalised concept of ‘fragile states’ and the associated models of indexing them based on domestic indicators reflect our quest to quantify and measure states’ performance. What we measure affects what we do. They also become an inseparable part of our vision of the world. Thus, it is important that we measure it right, if at all. This research investigates the underlying narratives of categorising states as ‘fragile’ from a global perspective by exploring the role of international structures on state fragility in the context of Bangladesh. It defines state fragility as: the extent to which the actual practice and capacities of states differ from their idealized images engendered by global factors. Highlighting the effects of global systemic forces on the structural and relational aspects of ‘fragile states’, the paper demonstrates the paradoxical nature of the concept. It contends that a comprehensive approach encapsulating not just the domestic factors but also the global political economy, interests and the duplicitous role of globalisation engendered by integration into global structures is central to any measurement of state performances. In the context of Bangladesh, the paper demonstrates that the pressure and incentives from powerful external actors buttressed by domestic compulsions and expediency, changed the initial socialist-secularist orientation of the country, embracing a free-market economy as well as providing space for Islamization. A disarticulated and abrupt economic liberalisation, together with restrictive and conditional global market access, trade barriers, an exploitative labour market, and structural adjustment programs trapped Bangladesh in lasting external dependency. It also created a parasitic domestic polity dependent on external linkage and changed the social capital contributing to state fragility. The external factors metamorphosed into domestic politics, distorting the concept of national security into regime security and consolidation of regime’s domestic political power. xvi As a way forward, the paper suggests scaling back international ambitions, particularly in the dimension of economic engineering, opening up market access, removing trade barriers, establishing independent global risk assessment to determine the pace and time of liberalisation, selective and controlled migration, forging partnerships for higher education and a complete reversal of current security priorities in fragile environments, emphasising life welfare. Such a tall order can only be achieved if the international community gets serious and acts on enlightened self-interest.