This week, an unpopular president of a small impoverished central American state was ousted in a coup before he could emulate his new-found hero, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and brush aside limits on his stay in office. Half a world away in Tehran, the rulers more cleverly wrapped up the re-election of their president and confidently declared it was illegal to contest the result, however much the rest of the world might protest against the cheating and thuggery that accomplished it.
The two countries had one thing in common - they are failing or fragile states. Two important prominent bodies, the World Bank and Foreign Policy magazine, have issued reports seeking to understand what makes a country succeed or fail. They got little publicity; that's a pity, as they contain important information and insights.
More important, 60 years after the founding of the United Nations to create an authority to set global standards and triumph over petty national tyranny, after the great hope of the communist revolution in China, after lots of petty tyrants, interminable bloody lesser wars, massacres, genocides and terrorist regimes, we are hardly closer to creating a world of justice or fairness, or equality of opportunity, or any of the hopes of the brave new world. Only this week, the World Food Programme declared that a billion people are starving, and that North Korea faces famine.
The World Bank report 'Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2008' assesses 212 countries and territories on their performance on six measures: voice and accountability; political stability and absence of violence; government effectiveness; the quality of regulations; the rule of law; and, control of corruption
It asserts that 'better governance helps in the fight against poverty and improves living standards', and points to some substantial improvements. Ghana, Niger and Peru have improved on voice and accountability; as have China, Colombia and Rwanda in government effectiveness; and Indonesia, Liberia and Serbia in controlling corruption.
However, it laconically concludes that 'on average, the quality of governance around the world has not improved much over the past decade'.