Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think of African politics, and an endless stream of coups and dictatorships come to mind. Some of the long-term (for life) presidents were devastating for their countries (Idi Amin, Bokassa, Mobutu and others). Who in your opinion were the best African leaders in terms of doing good for their countries in the last 60 years?
Some of my picks:
Nelson Mandela (south Africa)
Patrice Lumumba (Congo)
Festus Mogae (Botswana)
Ellen Sirleaf (Liberia)
Seretse Khama (Botswana)
Felix Houphouet-Boigny (Ivory Coast)
Seewoosagur Ramgoolam (Mauritius)
John Kufuor (Ghana)
Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya)
Julius Nyeyere (Tanzania)
Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana)
Who in your opinion were the best African leaders in terms of doing good for their countries in the last 60 years?
I'd say Botswana's first president Seretse Khama. Of the new post colonial leaders he had the best political and economic model.
His economic policies:
Quote:
Unlike other countries in Africa, his administration adopted market-friendly policies to foster economic development. Khama promised low and stable taxes to mining companies, liberalized trade, and increased personal freedoms. He maintained low marginal income tax rates to deter tax evasion and corruption...
If only other African leaders had applied this to their countries.
Gee whiz and only if their former colonial rulers had left behind an infrastructure that would support a market economy instead of political conflict and economic sabotage.
Go back and look at the evolutionary governmental process that the British established for power sharing beginning in 1920.
Gee whiz and only if their former colonial rulers had left behind an infrastructure that would support a market economy instead of political conflict and economic sabotage.
Go back and look at the evolutionary governmental process that the British established for power sharing beginning in 1920.
Only to a certain extent. See where Japan, South Korea and Malaysia were in say 1950 and compare with now. Most African countries got independence by the mid-60s, so it's been 55+ years now. Stability plays an important part.
Only to a certain extent. See where Japan, South Korea and Malaysia were in say 1950 and compare with now. Most African countries got independence by the mid-60s, so it's been 55+ years now. Stability plays an important part.
No I don't see a comparison worth mentioning. Japan was never a colony of the west or anyone else and was exceedingly successful at keeping out foreign powers throughout its history. By the time of the Second World War Japan was a major economic and military power. The same can be said for the most part regarding Korea and it would be important to note that Korea was aided in its industrial development by the fact that lacking any natural resource to speak Korea's greatest asset to the West was a cheaper source of manufacturing as Japan's industrial economy rebounded from WWII. Having a series of dictatorial regimes didn't hurt its economic development. As for Malaysia, like Botswana the British government throughout the its colonial rule in the 20th century helped to build the economic infrastructure in cooperation with the Malaysian rulers.
Now compare that to the role of French, Portuguese and Belgian colonial rule and the intransigence of white majority rule no the African continent not to mention the fact that the Soviet Union and the U.S. used Africa as a proxy playground for the Cold War. And I hasten to mention that because Africa is indeed a resource rich continent there has been no interest on the part of the IMF, the World Bank or anyone else for that matter to invest in technology of even basic manufacturing. Although I wish I could live long enough to see what impact China's measured development activities on the continent will have of African economic development.
Gee whiz and only if their former colonial rulers had left behind an infrastructure that would support a market economy instead of political conflict and economic sabotage.
Too many of Africa's new post colonial leaders didn't want a market economy or democratic political system. Kwame Nkrumah wanted Ghana to become an African version of the Soviet Union with a state controlled economy and one party state. Other new leaders also wanted to implement some version of this "African socialism". Today I'd think most people would agree that a state controlled economy and one party political system isn't what will help you to overcome whatever disadvantages you inherited from colonialism. Botswana was just as poor as other African countries after gaining independence. The difference was with the path to development its new leaders chosed.
I think looking back at history, there is a strong case that an educated and solid middleclass is nearly a prerequisite for vibrant democracy and capitalism. Like it or not, those systems cannot suddenly exist and the results when they are imposed are often disastorous. I think in most cases you need a period of strong central authority in the form of something like an absolute/enlightened monarchy or a planned socialist state in order to provide security and development to grow that educated middleclass. Of course, that then depends on finding good central rulers who are willing to lay the groundwork and then step out of the way and allow the transition to democracy and free market systems. In the case of Africa they have come up pretty short on the "good/enlightened" leader side and have also been subject to the whims of other powers even after they gained their independence. In many cases the former colonial powers were simply replaced with others who knew how to impose the same effect while not being foolish enough to actually try and run things themselves. Impose the right set of economic chains, prop up the guy who is friendly to your interests and you can create a modern version of colonialism that doesn't require "boots on the ground".
Thing is to understand why there have been so many authoritarians, you got to look at where the people are coming from.
The societies under discussion might not want, understand nor care about having governments modeled on those of North America and western Europe.
A ruler who reduces his own power and gives it "to the people" might suffer a reduction in his lifespan in addition to his term in office.
"The people" would probably see it as a sign of weakness and would reward the leader for their upliftment by slitting his throat.
Some people just can't live without feudalism and authoritarianism. Many will be confused; others would not know what to do with freedom if you hit them over the head with it; and then there are those who would take the opportunity to rampage.
You can't change everyone and sometimes you just have to accept them and their system as it is, even if its one based on warlords who rule via religious right and military might.
Last edited by kovert; 08-06-2012 at 05:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
