Failed or prejudiced?

Remember the hoopla created over the Failed State Index around the same time last year? Some were appalled at Pakistan being dubbed a failed state, some thought it was only apt, and some fed on the sensation created by the tussle between the other two factions.
Once more, fodder for controversy aficionados has been released in the form of the Failed State Index for 2011, but with a better ranking for Pakistan this time.
Perhaps its the tad improvement - from the 10th place as a failed state in 2009 and 2010 to 12th this year - that might explain the relatively hushed up responses of the media. After all, even though escaping the list of the op-ten of a rather scorned list is a positive development, it would not stir as much public interest as some news of a deterioration of some ailing aspect of the country.
The name of the index leads one to jump to conclusions, as it is believed to be a reflection of the social and economic developments of a country. Many would mistakenly assume by failed state that the nation has stooped to inferior levels in terms of indicators such as infrastructure, health, education, economic growth, etc.
However, the index is more an index of roubled countries, those torn by violence and corruption. The parameters of the index (see table) are more a reflection of conflict, potential conflict, and the consequences of the same on a state.
Therefore, even though the indexs parameters may be important in steering the course of a countrys development, construing the index as a holistic indication of the level of development is a spot-on fallacy.
Besides, the use of the word failed for the index has too strong, and too ambiguous a connotation to spare the publics controversy.
In the case of Pakistan, the horror stories of the security situation have played a very critical role in bringing the country in the ambit of the so-called failed states. And indeed, the law and order situation, corruption and overall public grievances are by no means even slightly close to being features to hail.
But giving the title failed to a country based on these aspects alone, and putting Pakistan at par with states such as Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan does seem like an exaggerated classification.
However, eyeing the methodology used to compile the index, Pakistans ranking doesn come as much a surprise. The data for the index are collected from a range of publicly available print and electronic media sources, interviews, polling and survey data, etc. Quantitative data is only included if available.
The overall index, therefore, can be safely categorised as being subjective, and that too, based on media telltales rather than detailed work of any sound, qualified authority.
Needless to say, the hullabaloo created by the Pakistani media over seemingly inconsequential issues, the drive to highlight events more drearily than they might have actually occurred, and a greater focus on negative aspects instead of upbeat facets of the country, all make Pakistan a perfect case for being included in the Index.
The name of the Index, nevertheless, remains too harsh as a subjective measure of a countrys security and overall political situation. A better name should be the media perception index, perhaps?

==========================================================

Pakistan less of a failure this year?

==========================================================                                 2011   2010   2009   2008

==========================================================

Rank                               12     10     10      9

Demographic pressures             8.8    8.1    8.3      8

Displacement of refugees          9.2    8.9    8.6    8.6

Group grievance                   9.3    9.5    9.6    9.5

Human flight                      7.5    7.9    8.3    8.1

Uneven development                8.5    8.4    8.8    8.8

Economic decline                  6.6    6.2    6.4    6.2

Delegitamization of the state     8.6    8.9    9.1    9.5

Deterioration of public services  7.3    7.3    7.5    7.1

Human rights abuses               8.7    8.9    8.9    9.5

Security apparatus                9.4    9.7    9.5    9.6

Rise of factionalised elites      9.1    9.5    9.6    9.8

External interventions            9.3    9.3    9.5    9.1

==========================================================