From the Bangkok Post: Is Thailand a failed state?

It's a question that can be asked of the governments in may countries where there seems to be no one in charge. In some of the early slides in class you'll notice content that points out that just because a nation has borders and can be spotted in a map, it does not follow that they posses the two things argued to be necessary to have a government - the ability to collect revenue and the ability to compel people to follow the law.

Here's concern that the Thai government can no longer do so, and has become what is called a failed state.

- Click here for the article.

There is no definitive consensus on what constitutes a failed state, but let’s consider this one. Washington-based NGO Fund for Peace outlined the following characteristics associated with failed states. One Loss of control of territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein. Two: Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions. Three: Inability to provide public services. Four: Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

On the first characteristic — discounting the area surrounding the Phreah Vihear temple — the conflict in the southern provinces of Songkhla, Yala and Narathiwat makes for a good argument. It is still Thai soil and under military rule, but we don’t have much control over it either.

For a government to maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders, the police and military must be in charge, as opposed to warlords, paramilitary or terrorist groups.

they can take over the streets of the capital. Not to the mention the storming of various government buildings.

Similar arguments are made about other nations.

For a systematic look at these, click here for the Failed - Fragile - State Index.