As you may know, I have an interest in Sub-Saharan Africa. I think the region doesn't get enough attention from the media in the West. Often times people think of the entire continent as mud huts and starving children. What is ignored are the success stories. One nation that stands out is Botswana. Upon it's independence in 1966 it was one of the poorest nations in the world. However, today it is one of the richest nations on the continent. How did they do this? Their first President, Seretse Khama, allowed for both political and economic freedoms for his people. Botswana respected property rights and Capitalism, and has a rapidly growing economy. Zimbabwe has gone down the exact opposite path and that nation is falling even deeper into poverty and their currency is worthless.
Will other countries in Africa follow Botswana's path? Will economic and political freedom prevail? In 50 years will some African countries be classified as "developed" rather than "developing?"
As you may know, I have an interest in Sub-Saharan Africa. I think the region doesn't get enough attention from the media in the West. Often times people think of the entire continent as mud huts and starving children. What is ignored are the success stories. One nation that stands out is Botswana. Upon it's independence in 1966 it was one of the poorest nations in the world. However, today it is one of the richest nations on the continent. How did they do this? Their first President, Seretse Khama, allowed for both political and economic freedoms for his people. Botswana respected property rights and Capitalism, and has a rapidly growing economy. Zimbabwe has gone down the exact opposite path and that nation is falling even deeper into poverty and their currency is worthless.
Will other countries in Africa follow Botswana's path? Will economic and political freedom prevail? In 50 years will some African countries be classified as "developed" rather than "developing?"
With regards to Botswana, it is a lot more complicated than that.
For starters, the country is basically one big desert that today has just around 2 million people living in it and on independence had just about half a million people in it. The country was almost exclusively one ethnic group (around 80%, IIRC). There was functionally nothing there for any political fracture lines to develop along (see: the Republic of Congo) and Britain had given up any desire to rule over a featureless desert with no apparent natural wealth.
The process of gaining independence was largely peaceful and more happened as a result of the UK trying to ditch its colonies than protests in Botswana.
After independence diamonds were discovered and controlled by a parastatal corporation where the Botswanan government had a 50% stake. (At least, it does now. No idea on what it was in the past.) A country with less than a third of the population of Minnesota that largely consists of a big uninhabited desert the size of Portugal with a clear ethnic majority and an export economy based around high value exports is going to do very well.
Botswana also lucked out in being almost completely ignored by the guerilla and border wars that plagued Southern Africa for almost 30 years and are still lurching along in the DRC. That helps.
On the contrary, Rhodesia issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence to preserve white rule in Africa and embarked on a 15 year guerilla war to try and preserve white rule. (Summed up brilliantly in a Channel 4 documentary. The white Rhodesians saw their relation to black Africans as fundamentally the relation between the master and the horse.) The Rhodesian government had numerous opportunities to make peace with the guerilla movements (ZANU and ZAPU) but fundamentally could not bring themselves to. Although the unity government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was formed in 1980, Maggie Thatcher -never a woman fond of compromise- decided to force ahead with full majority rule.
Trying to compare the two is sort of suspect. Botswana was a largely uninhabited desert with functionally no internal issues and was able to benefit from a strong export market that prompted domestic development. Zimbabwe found itself in a brutal guerilla war over a desire to preserve white minority rule and exist for 15 years as an unrecognized state.
Botswana is the odd one out for African countries. It lucked out with ethnic composition, population, the timing of its independence, the discovery of wealth after independence, and good leadership.
Their first President, Seretse Khama, allowed for both political and economic freedoms for his people. Botswana respected property rights and Capitalism, and has a rapidly growing economy.
Well, there is more to it than meets the eye. First, Ajidica detailed quite well how political circumstances dictate a lot of things. However, what economic system a country gets is dependent on that as well. While I agree open markets and property rights are vital for prosperity, the ability of nations to enact this system depends on a political soundness.
Most African countries aren't politically sound: The borders have been drawn by Western powers and from their perspective it made sense as they needed an easy fix to administer bureaucracy. As far as we know, it wasn't a cynical ploy at divide and conquer, since European were arguably ignorant of ethnic boundaries in Africa at the time. Often, one tribe would provide the military power to preserve colonial power - a pattern which can also be observed in Non-African former colonies such as Indonesia where we placed the Moluccans on a pedestal, Iraq where the British placed the Sunni minority in power (Saddam Hussein) and is Syria where the Alawites were the favoured minority under French rule and of which the Assad government is direct result.
Now, here is why ethnic minority rule and free markets rarely work well together: Unless the minority is already more wealthy due to factors not related to politics, a politically powerful minority that isn't particularly distinguished in wealth will try to subvert the economy into doing their bidding at the expense of others. In fact, even the US suffers from it in the form of pork-barrel spending. Basically, African countries suffer from exactly this, though to a much greater degree. Things like property rights, the welfare state and open markets often fare better in countries with a homogenous population or a society accustomed to ethnic differences and in most African countries, neither is true.
Most African countries aren't politically sound: The borders have been drawn by Western powers and from their perspective it made sense as they needed an easy fix to administer bureaucracy. As far as we know, it wasn't a cynical ploy at divide and conquer, since European were arguably ignorant of ethnic boundaries in Africa at the time. Often, one tribe would provide the military power to preserve colonial power - a pattern which can also be observed in Non-African former colonies such as Indonesia where we placed the Moluccans on a pedestal, Iraq where the British placed the Sunni minority in power (Saddam Hussein) and is Syria where the Alawites were the favoured minority under French rule and of which the Assad government is direct result.
Imagine Spain, only instead of 4 languages there are dozens. And Catalunya and Basque are Muslim. And Galicia is a third religion. And instead of 1 Franco you have a string of them. And there's oil. A lot of it.
With regards to Botswana, it is a lot more complicated than that.
For starters, the country is basically one big desert that today has just around 2 million people living in it and on independence had just about half a million people in it. The country was almost exclusively one ethnic group (around 80%, IIRC). There was functionally nothing there for any political fracture lines to develop along (see: the Republic of Congo) and Britain had given up any desire to rule over a featureless desert with no apparent natural wealth.
The process of gaining independence was largely peaceful and more happened as a result of the UK trying to ditch its colonies than protests in Botswana.
After independence diamonds were discovered and controlled by a parastatal corporation where the Botswanan government had a 50% stake. (At least, it does now. No idea on what it was in the past.) A country with less than a third of the population of Minnesota that largely consists of a big uninhabited desert the size of Portugal with a clear ethnic majority and an export economy based around high value exports is going to do very well.
Botswana also lucked out in being almost completely ignored by the guerilla and border wars that plagued Southern Africa for almost 30 years and are still lurching along in the DRC. That helps.
Don't many African countries have valuable resources as well?
Also, racial equality and peaceful coexistence were part of Khama's deliberate plan for the nation. And IIRC the country also allowed large numbers of refugees from surrounding nations to stay in the country. He wanted to avoid ethnic conflict that was occurring in other African nations.
On the contrary, Rhodesia issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence to preserve white rule in Africa and embarked on a 15 year guerilla war to try and preserve white rule. (Summed up brilliantly in a Channel 4 documentary. The white Rhodesians saw their relation to black Africans as fundamentally the relation between the master and the horse.) The Rhodesian government had numerous opportunities to make peace with the guerilla movements (ZANU and ZAPU) but fundamentally could not bring themselves to. Although the unity government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was formed in 1980, Maggie Thatcher -never a woman fond of compromise- decided to force ahead with full majority rule.
Trying to compare the two is sort of suspect. Botswana was a largely uninhabited desert with functionally no internal issues and was able to benefit from a strong export market that prompted domestic development. Zimbabwe found itself in a brutal guerilla war over a desire to preserve white minority rule and exist for 15 years as an unrecognized state.
Botswana is the odd one out for African countries. It lucked out with ethnic composition, population, the timing of its independence, the discovery of wealth after independence, and good leadership.
Well, don't you think that Mugabe has at least something to do with how terrible Zimbabwe is doing? I recognize that Zimbabwe was bound to face challenges due to it's unique conditions. But the policies Mugabe put in place exacerbated them.
Had Seretse Khama not allowed for political and economic freedoms in the country, and sought instead to have the state control people's lives I don't think Botswana would be where it is today.
Well, there is more to it than meets the eye. First, Ajidica detailed quite well how political circumstances dictate a lot of things. However, what economic system a country gets is dependent on that as well. While I agree open markets and property rights are vital for prosperity, the ability of nations to enact this system depends on a political soundness.
Most African countries aren't politically sound: The borders have been drawn by Western powers and from their perspective it made sense as they needed an easy fix to administer bureaucracy. As far as we know, it wasn't a cynical ploy at divide and conquer, since European were arguably ignorant of ethnic boundaries in Africa at the time. Often, one tribe would provide the military power to preserve colonial power - a pattern which can also be observed in Non-African former colonies such as Indonesia where we placed the Moluccans on a pedestal, Iraq where the British placed the Sunni minority in power (Saddam Hussein) and is Syria where the Alawites were the favoured minority under French rule and of which the Assad government is direct result.
Now, here is why ethnic minority rule and free markets rarely work well together: Unless the minority is already more wealthy due to factors not related to politics, a politically powerful minority that isn't particularly distinguished in wealth will try to subvert the economy into doing their bidding at the expense of others. In fact, even the US suffers from it in the form of pork-barrel spending. Basically, African countries suffer from exactly this, though to a much greater degree. Things like property rights, the welfare state and open markets often fare better in countries with a homogenous population or a society accustomed to ethnic differences and in most African countries, neither is true.
I understand what you are saying. I still think that countries like Zimbabwe would be better off than they are now had they allowed for free markets and property rights. Though from what you and Ajidica said I can see why that country would still have lingering problems that would impede economic progress.
Just wondering, are there any other African countries that are ethnically homogenous besides Botswana? I can't think of any.
I knew him and his valueable contributions. And I agree that this post was amazing. Several times I have heard of Botswana as a poster child for a rising African continent - never have I heard about the actual background. Stuff like this was what made OT always awesome. Too bad it has become rather rare.
That said, Africa does have decent growth rates, as I recall. Not just Botswana.
I knew him and his valueable contributions. And I agree that this post was amazing. Several times I have heard of Botswana as a poster child for a rising African continent - never have I heard about the actual background. Stuff like this was what made OT always awesome. Too bad it has become rather rare.
That said, Africa does have decent growth rates, as I recall. Not just Botswana.
Yes, but in most of those cases it was discovered before independence which made things very complicated. (See Katanga and the Congo Crisis.) Or, as with Angola, the country was in the process of being ripped apart by civil war and all of the oil wealth was used to purchase arms and weapons. (The Angolan Civil War resulted in the strange situation where Cuban troops sent to fight alongside the communist MPLA were being used to protect Chevron oil platforms in Angola.)
Also, racial equality and peaceful coexistence were part of Khama's deliberate plan for the nation. And IIRC the country also allowed large numbers of refugees from surrounding nations to stay in the country. He wanted to avoid ethnic conflict that was occurring in other African nations.
Explicitly ethnic conflict was rather rare in Africa, it is just that a lot of the common understanding of the region has been colored by the Rwandan Genocide. Political parties often relied on ethnic loyalties for support because the political environment was so new there was functionally no other social group politics could organize around. The trade unions in the cities had limited influence over the vast rural areas, and the intelligencia was way too small to create their own party.
Inside Katanga (if you wonder why I keep going back to Katanga, it is because I wrote my senior thesis paper on the role of ethnicity in the secession of Katanga), the political and economic power was held by a coalition of white settlers and Lunda elites (CONAKAT). Under Belgian rule a large number of people were brought in to work in the mines of Katanga; mainly Baluba. When discussions for independence began, the largest and most influential political group was the leftist MNC under Patrice Lumumba. The MNC favored a unitary, centralized state that would have tried to redistribute the vast wealth of Katanga throughout the Congo. The Katangese political and economic elites were afraid the Baluba -who formed a plurality of voters- would vote for Lumumba's MNC and take political power away from the whites and Lundas. Tensions came to a head, CONAKAT embarked on legal wrangling and gerrymandering and good old fashioned oppression to keep the Baluba out of the Katangese Parliament. Before the ink was barely dry on the treaty giving the Congo independence Katanga seceded, taking with it the wealthiest and most industrialized province of the Congo.
The secession of Katanga was due in part to ethnic issues, but ethnic issues alone would not have seen Katangese secession. Katangese secession required economic and political reasons; ethnic loyalties simply provided the way for the elites to mobilize a large number of people.
Excerpts of the Katangese Declaration of Independence.
(I don't speak a word of French and I've struggled to find a translation of the whole thing into English.)
Spoiler:
Throughout the Congo and particularly in Katanga and Leopoldville province, we see a tactic of disorganization and terror at work, a tactic which we have seen applied in numerous instances and in how many countries now under Communist dictatorship.
After improper elections in certain provinces, which gave the majority to a certain party … a central government with an extremist majority was constituted.
Hardly was it constituted, before this government attempted to meddle in affairs which properly belonged solely within the competent jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
…
Since July 5, soldiers knowing no discipline have given themselves over acts of insubordination, of threats, to brutalities aimed principally against the European population, to searches and illegal arrests, to pillages, and finally, to murders.
The goal of these maneuvers and their premeditation were amply proven by the repeated protests of the Prime Minister of the Congo against the dispatch of Belgian troops from Belgium to protect property and human lives.
We declare that what the current central Congolese government wants is nothing less than the disintegration of the whole military and administrative apparatus, the installation of a regime of terror which ousts our Belgian colleagues.
…
Under these circumstances, and before the dangers we would bring down upon us by prolonging our submission to the arbitrary will and Communistic intentions of the central government, the Katangese government has decided to proclaim the independence of Katanga.
This INDEPENDENCE IS TOTAL. However, aware of the imperative necessity for economic cooperation with Belgium, the Katangan government, to which Belgium has granted the assistance of its own troops to protect human life, calls upon Belgium to join with Katanga in close economic community, Katanga calls upon Belgium to continue its technical, financial, and military support. It calls upon her to assist in re-establishing order and public safety.
Well, don't you think that Mugabe has at least something to do with how terrible Zimbabwe is doing? I recognize that Zimbabwe was bound to face challenges due to it's unique conditions. But the policies Mugabe put in place exacerbated them.
I understand what you are saying. I still think that countries like Zimbabwe would be better off than they are now had they allowed for free markets and property rights.
When looking at Zimbabwe, you have to remember that for the white minority, black majority government was a fundamentally alien concept for them. It would be like a black person being elected governor of Alabama in 1964. Although Rhodesia never really set up an apartheid system, there were still myriad legal barriers to blacks in Rhodesia, to say nothing of the social and cultural barriers held by the white minority who controlled the economy, government, and education systems. Change to the system had to be done and it is unlikely the change could have been done had the relevant areas of society still been under the control of people who had spent years defending minority rule.
Just wondering, are there any other African countries that are ethnically homogenous besides Botswana? I can't think of any.
FWIW the arrival of European colonies really changed what ethnic identity meant in Africa. In Kenya, the British government provided different legal rights to different ethnic groups. Upon Belgian arrival in Rwanda, they treated the Hutu and Tutsi's as different races despite it being just as much an economic distinction as ethnic. There are numerous accounts of Hutus 'being promoted' to Tutsi's because they purchased more cattle.
Zambia's economy is driven by copper exports to an unhealthy degree. When the international market for copper is good, Zambia does well. When it is bad, Zambia does poorly.
The best thing that could possibly happen to sub-Saharan Africa would be a massive renunciation of Christianity while forsaking the stoning and burning of witches, as well as driving out foreign corporations which continue to exploit the people and the natural resources for their own greed. But what are the chances of that ever happening?
The forces that made it impoverished in the first place are still in place. Why would it "rise" from that? More like dragged along behind it. Independence has enabled some minor dents in the process of wealth siphoning to form, especially where organized challenges to it form like in Burkina Faso, Libya, or Zimbabwe, but on the whole Africa is still being stolen from and oppressed on a massive scale by foreign capital.
Cheezy, have you heard of the free-trade-agreement the EU made with several African nations?
I forgot the name, which one, but at least one African nation resisted on the grounds that this would damage its domestic industry.
The EU responded by threatening economic sanctions.
The trade agreement was signed.
The best thing that could possibly happen to sub-Saharan Africa would be a massive renunciation of Christianity while forsaking the stoning and burning of witches, as well as driving out foreign corporations which continue to exploit the people and the natural resources for their own greed. But what are the chances of that ever happening?
The best thing that could possibly happen to sub-Saharan Africa would be a massive renunciation of Christianity while forsaking the stoning and burning of witches, as well as driving out foreign corporations which continue to exploit the people and the natural resources for their own greed. But what are the chances of that ever happening?
Once in power, Pol Pot began a radical experiment to create an agrarian utopia inspired in part by Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution which he had witnessed first-hand during a visit to Communist China.
Mao's "Great Leap Forward" economic program included forced evacuations of Chinese cities and the purging of "class enemies." Pol Pot would now attempt his own "Super Great Leap Forward" in Cambodia, which he renamed the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea.
He began by declaring, "This is Year Zero," and that society was about to be "purified." Capitalism, Western culture, city life, religion, and all foreign influences were to be extinguished in favor of an extreme form of peasant Communism.
All foreigners were thus expelled, embassies closed, and any foreign economic or medical assistance was refused. The use of foreign languages was banned. Newspapers and television stations were shut down, radios and bicycles confiscated, and mail and telephone usage curtailed. Money was forbidden. All businesses were shuttered, religion banned, education halted, health care eliminated, and parental authority revoked. Thus Cambodia was sealed off from the outside world.
Right. It wasn't due to centuries of rampant European exploitation that stole their natural resources and essentially turned them into slaves in their own countries, while being overrun by their missionaries who turned them into bigoted murderers based on superstitious nonsense.
It is really due to liberals, socialists, and even communists.
Right. It wasn't due to centuries of rampant European exploitation that stole their natural resources and essentially turned them into slaves in their own countries, while being overrun by their missionaries who turned them into bigoted murderers based on superstitious nonsense.
It is really due to "liberals", "socialists", and even "communists".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
