Sociology

To be labeled either as a failing or failed state is something no government would like to have. Such a state is characterized by an unstable government where the leaders are weak or do not have the confidence or trust of the citizens. Because they are weak, they are prone to the evils of graft and corruption. Consequently, this would have a chain reaction on the other aspects of the country such as the economy where there would be an unequal distribution of wealth, and it would be difficult to get foreign investments to help jumpstart the economy. It is also likely that the poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment rates would be very high. These conditions invite internal unrest, making it ripe for extremist groups, left or right, to move in and take over or chaos would ensue. The question now is who is to blame

Unfortunately, there is no definite answer to that question. Any answer given is bound to be an opinion and in some cases tainted with biases. For those in power, it is very easy to pass the blame on their enemiesthe opposition, insurgents (if there are any), and even (particularly) western nations. From the opposite perspective, the leaders are to blame for letting corruption and mismanagement go unchecked, leading to their sorry state despite claims to the contrary.

If I were to be asked, I would be inclined to agree on the latter argument. These leaders are in a position to make things happen since they have the resources of the nation at their disposal and the authority to employ them the way they see fit. They have to either reform or assert their political will. To paraphrase a remark made by a former head of state, no one can help their nation except themselves.  If the governments of these faltering states fail to do so, foreign intervention would be the only solution if nobody else is willing to take up the cudgels of restoring stability back to these countries.