Nation-Building Elevated

[Surferbeetle]

Steve,

As Ken has noted your preceding post is indeed an excellent one and there is much wisdom in it, however, let's examine it further (And Ken, to echo one of your earlier posts today…what you think is of interest... metrics! That should do it )

This reminds me of how much I dislike the term "nation-building", and why.

The term sets up a number of expectations on all sides of the process and does not fully help, as much as we might like, to bridge the gap between the on the ground realities we find and the desired outcomes-oftentimes developed in places far away. Nonetheless, I do not yet have a better term (the term nation cultivation will not survive the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of terms and acronyms); perhaps we can find something better if we get a chance to read works from all of the development authors/theorists/contributors mentioned by M.A. Lagrange in his posts - or if he chimes in and helps out

Walt Whitman Rostow - Rostovian Take-off Model
Immanuel Wallerstein-The Modern World System
Samir Amin-Theory of Centre and Periphery
Giovanni Arrighi-World Systems
Hans Singer-Raul Prebisch-Dependency Theory
Alexander Gerschenkron-Backwardness Model

You can't build a nation, any more than you can build a tree. These are not things that are built, these are things that grow. It's a semantic distinction, but semantic distinctions do influence perception, discourse, and eventually policy.

There are many truths here, and I like the tree analogy because it helps one to think about the types of consistent conditions, which are needed for growth, as well as why one must pair realistic time-spans/schedules with achievable results. The disconnect between wishing for/planning for/advertising a cash crop before an orchard can physically produce it is something that does not require a grounding in nation building, state building, or development work to understand.

The idea that a nation can be built is what leads us to the absurdity of nominally rational adults talking about "installing" a democracy, as if it were a light bulb or spare tire, and we have a warehouse full of neatly stacked crates labeled "democracy, functioning, one" just waiting to be screwed into place.

Following our tree analogy, there are some places that will most certainly require additional water and soil additives in order to grow a ‘democracy tree’ and even with additional long-term care there are some environments that may not be able to support that particular type of tree. IMHO economics, in particular some form of capitalism, help to set the conditions for sustainable growth and are a more realistic place to focus efforts upon before planting a 'democracy tree'.

Treating nations and states as growing entities that need to be cultivated rather than engineering challenges awaiting the correct blueprint is not going to solve the problems, but it might provide a more effective foundation for developing solutions.

A too literal application of the engineering method/attitude is certainly something to be guarded against. One could argue that favoring an interdisciplinary approach, perhaps having/seeking a grounding in biology, business, and engineering, or engaging in kayaking or surfing are potential pathways to develop/increase/reinforce one’s awareness of the need to seek balance in all things.

We have to accept that the growth of nations is an inherently disorderly process and that conflict is usually going to be part of it. Our own nation undertook one of history's great genocides and fought one of history's great civil wars before defining itself as a nation. Western Europeans see themselves at the pinnacle of human civilization, but the warring tribes of western Europe went through many centuries of gory and destructive conflict before they could even figure out where one nation ended and others began. When we look with horror on the wars and abuses of Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East we would do well to reflect that all they are doing is settling their business in exactly the same way we once settled ours. Colonial powers may have suspended the process by imposing order at the expense of stability, but when they left the process continued.

Having spent some time studying Germanic and Roman history & culture I would tend to agree with many of your points. As an observational aside, have you been following the current political machinations with respect to the IHEC decision in Iraq? I wonder how these events are/will impact the Sunni component of the military and militias; Dr. Charles Tripp’s descriptions of the influence the military had upon the political landscape in Iraq during July 1958 and February 1963 make for interesting reading and comparison.

None of this means we have to simply sit back and accept whatever happens. It means we have to accept that we can only manage situations to the greatest extent possible (which may at times be a very minimal extent), not control them.

A successful balanced approach might indeed include an engineering approach/methodology and business approach/methodology component in the response. (apparently I am outta my allotment of wry smiles, nonetheless one has been placed here due to the one dimensional commo method we use)

We cannot build nations, or states. We may be able to help cultivate them, if we recognize that an organic growth process is involved and start working with it instead of trying to control it to achieve our own immediate goals.

Although I agree with your much of your concept, it will need a stronger term or acronym in order to both survive and generate interest in the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of ideas. The myriad aspects of the commonly heard phrase ‘carnivore vs. herbivore thinking’ both make me smile and think about how to find needed balance.

Omnivore thinking?