Powered by ProofFactor - Social Proof Notifications

The Complexities of State Building: Challenges and Doubts

Jul 13, 2023 | 0 comments

blog banner

Jul 13, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

Introduction

State building refers to the act of establishing institutions that are responsible for creation and maintenance of durable social, financial, and political growth. The institutions include Judicial Systems, Legislatures, Executive agencies, and police and military forces. The basis of state building is to facilitate harmony construction among international states that arise from eras of interior violence. A feeble state is a major contributing factor to disasters such as violence, diseases, and poverty. Several arguments concerning state building as a step to peace building exist among nations. The notion this essay is to contend that state building is not a reliable method for nurturing stability and peace. Its major focus is to discuss the existing doubts about the success of international interventions and challenges faced by state building operations.

 

People Also Read

 

Several uncertainties on the future prospect of state building missions result from the past records. Countries such as Rwanda, Angola, and Sierra Leone have clear records of failure in state building process for peace building (Roland & Timothy 12). The fact that nations that are on the mission of state building are not part of the affected countries but are rather foreign actors creates many contradictions. Foreign actors’ objectives address little or no socio-economic differences, which are the main causes of civil conflicts. The probability that any attempts to institutional constructions will fail is high because the mission keeps on changing with the evolution of powerful technology. Even though the operations does not pose any threat, there are still many doubts about the capability of global agencies to create peaceful nations.

The state building being a long-term mission creates anxiety among postwar nations. Some, which claim that the international operation signifies a practice of foreign control over regions damaged by wars. State building movements claim that the operation is a capitalistic manipulation of fragile nations and that it is dangerous to the development of such societies. According to Roland & Timothy (23), the process of fostering sustainable individual laws built on domestic governing levels have objectives that contradict the international cultural reliance. There are several doubts on whether nation-building determinations opens continuous placement and endless reliance. The uncertainties come from the challenges faced by the operating intercontinental peace building.

A third reason for the uncertainty of state building operations is difficulty in separating the difference between creating peace in postwar nations and those of ill-fated countries. The contradictions cause many arguments on the same. The difference begins after 9/11 war, especially the Iraq invasion in 2003 (Roland & Timothy 68). For instance, the situation of harmony construction in Iraq differs from other states that facilitate state building. Iraq seeks state building to minimize its national insecurity and to gain international respect (Roland & Timothy 127). However, war-torn countries sought global assistance to help implement peace settlements after the civil war. The difference is inevitable hence creating doubts on the possible efficiency of the post-war state-building procedure.

Challenges faced by state building operations

State building operations face the lack of commitment of global resources. The United Nations board, basing their arguments on capital allocation, they concluded that any form of failure to capitalize adequate resources in peace building raises the chances that the countries will suffer deterioration into another battle (Roland & Timothy 17).The breach between the requirements of the international operations and the available resources determines the efficiency of the intervention. Global commitment to state building requires resources such as skilled personnel, funds, time, and equipment. In most occasions, the interveners provide only financial support and assume other needs, therefore, creating a large gap between the constraints.

The process of constructing and strengthening state institutions being a long-term mission may cause lack of planned rational among global peace builders. The situation may force the U.N. to create of new official reforms since it raises the need for directors of redeployment for the best coordination. In 2006, the U.N. came up with a new Peace Building Directive, which was to assist in organizing its actors and policies and to manage capitals for the nations of its program (Hammond 10). The absence of organized strategies for an intervention results in poor resource allocation, communication skills, time management. Coordination among workers and interveners is a major necessity for a successful reconstruction at any time of development.

Another challenge faced by state builders is a lack of knowledge of the complexities of the mission. The need to understand the contradictions and pressure of state reconstruction is very important. Following frequent failure by nations struggling for peace attainment, the first step is to understand the contradiction of institutional building by taking into account the characteristics of the mission followed by systematic analysis of the past records and inspecting their strategies, purpose, and assumptions (Roland & Timothy 157). As opposed to considering reorganization and reinvestment as the initial stage. Common state building assumptions include neglect of nations rising from wars. Legitimate state institution depends on the restricted basis of knowledge on important elements of peace building in nations damaged by civil wars.

State building failure to reconstruct peace and stability in post-war nation relies on certain quandaries and paradoxes. They include some notions that claim that external intervention is to promote self-government and that global control should build local ownership. The tension originates from incompatibilities between universal values and those posed by political traditions, social practices, and cultural expiations of the multitude society. There is also a misunderstanding that state building can remake societies damaged by wars. Roland & Timothy (230) stated that moving from conflict to peace is a progressive and continuous change. At the beginning of every intervention, foreign actors face tension to act as if the operation is short-term making them meet long-term challenges in the end.

The direction of the mission of state building is very unclear since the whole process poses over-expectations. Several types of research on institutional construction endorse withdrawal of the effort placed on the mission. For example, pursuing state construction to an operative government within prevailing limitations can restriction boundaries to conduct preparations that do not imitate fundamental social designs, especially in nations where the drawing of borders was the function of legislations. Therefore, the intervention may be unsustainable. Roland & Timothy (80) encourages ill-fated nations to allow the failure of their states then begin by rebuilding the center of dogmatic specialist rising from the wars. Without external courses, the post-war countries can then rebuild national restrictions to mirror the new measures instead of pursuing to preserve the indefensible falsehoods of countless governments.

Military victories produce lifelong peace compared to global interventions. Promotion of independent regaining from war can help warring nations to reduce violence and promote after war economic and socio-political development. International determinations to stop conflicts through conciliation settlements hinders stable power provision especially when they aim at rebuilding states based on the reconstructions (Roland & Timothy 157). There are high chances that the conflict might reoccur after completion of international programs. However, when the conflicting nations fight naturally, they come up with the victory, which creates and enduring peace. Internal conflicts ending in triumphs create respect among the fighters than when negotiation becomes the method to achieve international peace.

Even though state building is not a good tactic to peace building, it has certain benefits in case of its success. State building helps to achieve national security and peace. Strong government nurtures government loyalties through their leaders and local officials (Hammond 80). A resilient state assists individuals to develop a close connection with the home federation. State building provides power to the institutions of laws thus making it easy to govern a nation. For instance, the United States has a large population that might be difficult to run without giving the state power to local officials. It promotes a concrete practice since the state officials are familiar with local problems. The pragmatism creates a sense of choosing policies directed to solve public problems.

State building targets political and economic stability. Commercial development refers to an increase in Gross Domestic Profit, which eventually promotes the quality of state output (Hammond 65). The related government output includes the creation of employment, increased average income, and state revenues. There is also high investments that assist in the provision of public services and environmental protection. A strong economy reduces internal conflicts and reliance on foreign investors. Removal of state government from certain antagonistic subject areas helps several countries get the opportunity to stabilize their government. The expansion of state on local and national events provides access to leaders and chances for government involvement.

Nations with an inadequate strength of federal institutions are at high risk of international security such as drug trafficking, transactional extremism, health dangers, and production of weapons for substantial destruction. A weak state creates a barrier to social and economic development and creates political problems. Major attributes of a feeble nation include increased immigration, abuse of human rights, disasters, and socio-economic conflicts (Hammond 50).. Establishment of a postwar administration to accomplish fundamental functions of public organizations should begin with the state relying on internal assistance. Nations with weak government become over-anxious about international interventions and therefore, get disappointed in the end when the operation takes long.

Conclusion

The fact that institutional construction and strengthening helps in alleviating the international system does not make it reliable and sustainable in addressing global peace matters. Several doubts revolve around the success of the international intervention in the post-war nations depending on the past conflicting records of minimal successful occasions. The reconstruction operations face various challenges from both internal and external sources hence, exposing its failures compared to its benefits. Therefore, the best policies that ill-fated nations should adopt is allowing the natural occurrence of conflicts to aid easy acceptance of the triumph nation. The strategy can help reduces international wars as nations will respect each other after the defeat.

Work cited

Hammond, Paul Y. “Presidents, Politics, and International Intervention”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 386 (2009): 10–18

Roland, Paris & Timothy, D., Sisk. “Dilemmas of State building”. Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (2009): 10-300

The International Intervention and Aspirations of Representative Governance”. “International Intervention and Aspirations of Representative Governance”. Derailing Democracy in Afghanistan: Elections in an Unstable Political Landscape. Columbia University Press, 2014. 217–234.

5/5 - (11 votes)
Table of Contents