Switzerland and Colombia

It is general knowledge that a state is defined as a political unification of people occupying a definite territory that is organized and controlled by civil rule or government. Our world is covered with states; there is not a group of people that lives in some type of territory that is not a part of some state (O’Neil 20-22). States are very imperative to the world we live in today, if there were no states there would just be chaos everywhere. Historically speaking, states have been listed into three categories: successful states, failing states, and failed states. Mostly all of the states that exist today are successful states, much like the country of Switzerland. Switzerland is one of the more interesting successful states. There has not been a failed state in many years, but in modern times there are plethoras of failing countries. One of the most intriguing failing states would have to be Colombia. What is the difference between a successful state and a failing state? This is one question that has been circling around for decades. Comparing a successful state such as Switzerland to a failing state like Colombia should help in retrieving the answer to this looming question.

Colombia was formed in 1819 when all of the native people began to grow weary of Spain’s royal rule. These native people decided to declare independence from Spain, this action sparked Spain to send over an army to try and regain the territory they had lost. A war broke out between the native people and the Spanish army. The Native people were victorious and the Republic of Greater Colombia was formed. Colombia was formed absolutely on the principle of consensus. Currently, the Republic of Colombia has a democratic ruling regime. Colombians have always been committed to the ideas of a democratic ruling regime. There have been instances where individuals would try to overtake the government, but Colombia always found a way to get back to its democratic roots. There are several radical groups that incessantly attempt to overthrow Colombian government. The main radical group that is currently one of the biggest threats for Colombian government is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). “The FARC is the oldest, largest, and most organized insurgent group in Columbia and in the Americas…The FARC's main leaders, Manuel Marulanda and Jose Briceсo, receive support from all segments of the population, but mostly at the rural level. The FARC relies primarily on kidnapping high-profile people for ransom money and overseeing drug operations as a means of income” (“Political Conditions”). These insurgent leaders have two agendas; one is attempt to gain political power and the other agenda is to control the drug trade and make a profit. There has been ongoing warfare between the government and all of these insurgent groups. Since the 1960s Colombia has been destabilized by anti-government guerrilla insurgencies and by the activities of illegal drugs cartels (“Recent History”). The democratic government has been surprisingly strong considering all of the insurgency going on throughout the territory. This insurgency has caused the government to focus more on the insurgent groups rather than the people who reside in the state. The government has increasingly begun to become corrupt; members of these insurgent groups are beginning to get involved with politics. The ruling regime of Colombia is not legitimate at all. The citizens of Colombia do not see there ruling regime as legitimate, the government exists, but its power is nonexistent. The occupants of Colombia obey to the insurgents and drug lords. According to the Weberian types of legitimacy, the legitimacy that best fits Colombia would have to be the charismatic category. The leaders of Colombia are the drug lords and insurgent leaders. These “leaders” are not necessarily charismatic, but the people of Colombia listen to them, because the people of Colombia are mostly afraid of them. Colombia is decentralized; there are no common means of authoritative power. The power of authority is dispersed between the government and the drug lords. Both the state’s capacity and autonomy are very low. The state is unable to fulfill basic tasks; the power is decentralized between the state and non-state persons (O’Neil 34-42).

Switzerland was formed