Africa Final Assessment Presentation

The Impact of Big Dictators in Africa

     Africa has been a hotbed for violence, unfair human treatment, and political power grabs since colonization began with the Berlin conference of 1885. This split Africa into sections that would be colonized by each European country, and held no regard for any pre existing settlements as the only important thing to the leaders was resources. Governments and systems were soon established, and Africa began spilling out resources to literally and figuratively fuel Europe's industrial fires. In this process Europe superimposed its culture onto the African natives, some of whom were initially resistant but eventually had to succumb to the European powerhouses. Europe held control over the African colonies until, in the 1950s and 60s, revolts against the neglectful European governments began and colonies began gaining their independence one by one. The problem with these coups was when the European government was removed, it's infrastructure was still there and the rebels didn't have a plan for a definitive government. This resulted in the seizure of power by warlords and charismatic dictators, who tyrannically ruled their countries and turned parts of Africa into a hostile military controlled environment.


     Many African governments are corrupt and unfavorable to citizens, which results in an imbalance of wealth in the country. Many of these countries have a huge percentage of the population below the poverty line, and may not have access to aid like food, water, shelter, and medical supplies. There has been some attempt by the UN at supplying these citizens with the proper necessities, however most of these are stolen or hijacked by government forces before they can get to civilians. Because of this, the dictator's power grows increasingly, but the rest of the country fall behind. The government is unwilling to spend large amounts of money on civil works, so many citizens are left to fend for themselves amidst the tyrannical rule of the dictator. This limits the potential for the population of the country to grow as a whole, therefore little progress is made to catch up to the widening gap of modernization of the rest of the world.


     Africa's outlook is difficult to say as of the current state of affairs, however this is not a problem that will suddenly fix itself. Eventually people will become intolerant of the current dictator and revolt, leading to the either exile or execution of that dictator. However, due to the fact that there was no plan after the revolution much like in the rebellions agains Europe, another dictator, usually the general with the most power in the revolution, will replace the previous one and the cycle will begin anew. This means that there will be a continuous cycle of dictators in Africa barring an abnormality. However the UN is attempting to intervene with this as much as possible, so it is possible to set up a stable country with an reliable government. For example, after the Charles Taylor was overthrown in Liberia, the UN sent in peacekeeping forces to enforce the ceasefire after the second Liberian Civil War.
 

    All of the current problems with dictators were ultimately a result of the failing of the post colonial governmental system, resulting in the gaining of power by dictators across Africa. If a single point in history could change to avoid this current situation, it would be at this time. Because the rebels were concentrated on winning the war, they were unable to plan for how to change an inherited governmental structure and keep the country stable. Had Europe peacefully conceded all of the colonies to their respective freedom groups, the emerging countries could have possibly had aid in establishing a firmer system of government and had backing to fend off warlords' power grabs. This would have resulted in counties becoming more modernized and self sustaining in the absence of a warlord sucking up all of the countries resources. Had Africa been able to stop dictators coming into power after the revolutions against Europe, Africa would currently be much more developed and would be continuing to grow with the rest of the globe. If we were to solve this problem in the modern day by somehow magically removing the dictators, Africa could start the path to recovery and modernization. Given the current state of Africa, if the dictators were to be removed there would still be the structure of power left behind, which would need to be stabilized by the UN before another dictator could come into power. Once this was accomplished, Africa could begin receiving foreign investment and start building things like better public access facilities and improve living conditions for those desperately in need of help. After the long process of rebuilding each country was complete, Africa could begin working on updating its technology, industry, and economy to modern standards. Because there would no longer be dictators abusing resources, countries could use their wealth of resources to begin the process of modernization. 


"United Nations Mission in Liberia." - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

 Overview of Politics in the Post-Colonial Era. N.p.: The Saylor Foundation, n.d. PDF.

Keatley, Atrick. "Idi Amin." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 17 Aug. 2003. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

"Top 10 Worst Dictators of Africa." Answers Africa. Alexander Moore Partners, 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

"Charles Taylor (Liberian Politician)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

 Ryan, Rosiland. "Tales of Brutality Begin Taylor War Crimes Trial." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 9 Jan. 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

Corder, Mike. "Liberia’s Charles Taylor Gets 50 Years in Prison for ‘blood Diamond’ Conflict | Toronto Star." Thestar.com. The Associated Press, 30 May 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

"Arab Uprising: Country by Country." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

"Top 10 Worst Dictators of Africa." Answers Africa. Alexander Moore Partners, 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

"Charles Taylor (Liberian Politician)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

 Ryan, Rosiland. "Tales of Brutality Begin Taylor War Crimes Trial." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 9 Jan. 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

Corder, Mike. "Liberia’s Charles Taylor Gets 50 Years in Prison for ‘blood Diamond’ Conflict | Toronto Star." Thestar.com. The Associated Press, 30 May 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

"Arab Uprising: Country by Country." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Web.

Thoughts and Reflections on Why the Nation State does not Work for Africa

     When the prominent Western powers convened in Berlin in 1885 to decide who got what part of Africa, the area in question had absolutely no representation. The only thing being taken under consideration was how to best profit from the exploitation of the continent's natural resources in a manner that prevented war and was "fair" to everyone. Around 75 years later when the colonies of the Western countries began to crumble, Africa had only one model for governance: the nation-sate. While this model has proven prosperous for many of the European countries which have used it, the cultures in Africa are far too numerous and diverse for it to be effective. Ethnic conflicts combined with severely limited representation ensured an emence imbalance of power which continues to plague many countries. Arbitrary boarders have clearly not been effective in stabilizing the region, and it is clear that a new approach is required. In order to ensure a greater balance of power, this new system should have representatives from each ethnic group. Ideally, these officials would be elected and regulated by the people. While this system of government is perhaps a little over idealistic, co-operation and negotiations between ethnic groups is certainly desirable to the endless feuding and genocide which has characterized Africa for decades. 

The Remapping of Africa

     The reasons for Africa’s current crisis are far too numerous and multi-faceted to pinpoint with total accuracy, but there are a few factors which have unambiguously contributed. The  goals for redrawing Africa’s boarders were to ensure both internal and external peace for countries, maintain cultural cohesiveness, and foster economic growth. Perhaps the greatest challenge that anyone faces while redividing the most conflict-ridden continent is taking into account the individual issues facing each nation. Because this would be practically impossible, these new boarders seek to benefit the continent as a whole as opposed to fix every problem on an individual basis.

     The greatest emphasis with these new boarders was creating and maintaining peace. This was primarily achieved through splitting up territorial disputes and conflicts over resources with boarders. Boarders were also placed depending on language in an effort to facilitate communication and cultural cohesiveness. Any conflict based on ethnicity or religion was slightly more difficult to resolve. On the one hand, separation could lead to a dangerous sense of nationalism, leading to further conflict. On the other, leaving the factions to their own devices would certainly not result in peace, and many interventions have proven to be successful. In the end, the decision was made that the combatants should be separated based on areas of conflict with the reasoning that there is little chance of the conflict any other way. 

    There were a few pieces of information which we deemed negligible in the redefining of African boarders, most of which had to do with the physical layout of the continent. While basing boarders off of defining physical features may be practical in some instances, none of the main goals listed above would have been served by it. While deterring who controls what aquifers is extremely important, it is secondary to putting an end to the immediate conflicts in the area.