This is a sore spot for africacels. Whenever people discuss the stunning success of Singapore which developed into an economic power which punches far above its weight, even though it is a relatively tiny nation by population and size.
Like much of africa, it was a colony post, used for trading. Yet it's early leadership was extremely well managed.
"I've seen Singapore come up a lot on discusslions of paths for African development and I am am the only one who thinks it's nonsensical? Singapore was a colonial trading post perfectly situated, comparing Singapore to let's say niger seems so incredibly stupid, Malaysia and other south and southeast Asian countries are better comparisons"
Basically they immediately lass out as always, and deny everything.
Africacels are not fans of Singapore's version of Attaturk - SingaDaddy (aka Lee Kuan Yew). That his authoritarian leadership turned a 3rd world backwater, into an emerging educated market state within his leadership lifespan, makes the Africacels green with envy
Africacels are illiterate morons
@X please correct their bullshit for us
"a well managed already good situation." lol lmoa. Ah yes this phrase
And this is the crux of the seeth for africans. They feel that post colonialism powers like Bongland and Frogland getting out of africa, had left few resources infrastructure and expertise for the new fledgling nations to govern themselves. And much of this is true. The colonization of Africa and Asia was different
However much of african nations did in fact inherit sufficient infrastructure, if not even more so than the fledgeling Singapore post colonialism, and the success of the tiny country is a painful reminder that failure was not a garrantee post colonialism, and that at least some; a non-zero percent of the fault of the failed state and anarchy and dictatorships in much of the 50 african states today is thus in the very least partly of their own doing - and this is a painful pill to swallow for /r/africacels whose entire libshit identity is build on their repression being the fault of white colonizers exclusively
Never once did african warlords seize power at the expense of their fellow inhabitants, or commit nation destroying corruption, no no, only colonization.
Thus the mere mention of Singapore triggers these fools like that rightoid who spazzed out this week from the non-binary option in starfield .
A few more levelheaded africacels try to go against the circlejerk
"Every successful country has lessons you can draw from and Singapore is one of them. You can't dismiss it outright. Singapore might have had an advantage in terms of its location but it also had several disadvantages; it had a small market, it had reached the limits of its entrepot trade economy, communist problem and surrounded by countries that either didn't like it or was at least suspicious of it, this meant limited trade.
The lessons African countries can draw from Singapore is that for a country to develop you don't need to be terribly reliant on having natural resources, you need a strong and pragmatic leadership that prizes economic growth and development via industrialization, carefully coordinating human resource development with infrastructure and industrial strategy, etc."
This of course deeply upsets the locals
And then what follows is a cope argument thread about nonsense and economics which basically boils down to the belief that africa never stood a chance bla bla
More example arguments about example this, example that 
Chud Nigerian say:
"You are missing the point. Nobody realised the potential of Singapore when independence was forced on them or when they had to stand on their own. It took vision, discipline, and a bit of good fortune for Singapore to be what it is today. Any country can copy that and be equally successful. Singapore strategic location might not be as big a factor as most people assume. There are a lot of small African countries with massive natural resources earning millions of dollars, yet they are poor. Natural advantages don't determine wealth in the modern world, you need good economic models, vision, and discipline."
This ticks off the examplecels 
Finland is great/poor example of prosperity
NO IT IS YOU WHO IS MISSING THE POINT!! 
"You mean if the Malaysians knew how strategic and economically important Singapore would become, they would have still expelled them? They were expelled for tribal reasons. If Malaysia realised their economic importance, then they wouldn't expel them." 
LOL
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The thing with Singapore and the Asian tigers in general is that having an authoritarian regime is kind of like playing the russian roulette. Maybe you'll get general Park or Lee Kuan Yew, and maybe your country bureaucracy wont be corrupt and actually follow the guidelines, but let's be honest, the average african authoritarian government probably makes the ANC look competent. I think Paul Kagame is the closest to LKY?
So basically le evil colonizers wont ever let Africa develop kind of vision right?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's Russian roulette but Asia's batting about 50% while Africa's still at zero.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, there's no silver bullet and it seems some authoritarianism is necessary for early development before democratizing, even european countries only allowed universal male suffrage after reaching a level of industrialization (and because of lot's protests lol). In LATAM people use Chile as a success story of a dictatorship but then you have cases like neighboring Argentina, with 6 coups in the 20th century and no success story at all from any of those military regimes so is just complicated
, many African countries also have ethnic conflicts which just adds 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What is wrong with the rest of the world?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The US had a 90% literacy rate in the late 18th century, universal white male suffrage was achieved by the early 1800s and the country was wealthier than Europe with huge swathes of the american population being composed of small property owners, there's a reason why millions of european peasants migrated to the Americas in the 19th and 20th centuries. Most European countries back in the 19th century had a limited suffrage where only those with money could vote, so the poors were told to shut up, democracy came after industrializing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Good god, Uhmerica is awesome!
You said it, buddy!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I think a part of it is that today, organized capitalist economics (private property, rule of law, global trade, etc.) of some sort(social democracy and fascism count as well, just anything where you can own private property and engage with the global market) is necessary for any kind of actual development, and that can only happen if 1. your people/voters are predisposed to liberalism and property rights (i.e. america) culturally or 2. it is forced onto them by an authoritarian regime, like singapore, korea, chile. Otherwise they just vote in people who promise them gibs and other nonsense like nationalism (for countries where there's nothing you could be proud of lol)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Throughout history, people have traded. They have understood and enjoyed the mutual benefits of property rights. The problem is that also throughout history is government which is essentially a group of bandits who r*pe, pillage, and plunder.
For example, the US got it right in the early 1800s with their government when tax revenue was about 5% of GDP, but over time they couldn't help themselves and now pilfer about 50% of your income.
Economic development, in the early stages, is very fragile because if a governmetn acts like the US in terms of tax policy during the 1950s and onward, then it'll most likely fail. Instead, if they 'lead them on' by being docile yet fair, it'll grow.
It helps to think of government as a parasite which in the early stages can be useful, and if it's not harmful enough, can grow very large without significantly impacting people (well, beyodn taking half of their income each year). If it gets too greedy too early, then it's a disaster.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Tbf East Asians do have two millennia+ of competent bureaucracy behind them, the authoritarian strongman thing works better that way than if you're building your country on whatever the Poms (bongs) could be bothered bringing over and tribal "government".
Which is why Singapore is a good example for Africa, because even tho it is mostly chinx upon independence it really had little more than whatever the Poms could be bothered bringing over. LKY best statesman of the 20th century don't @ me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
From what I read, a large part of the strong bureacracy and governance in singapore comes from the fact that there, officials are presumed guilty of corruption until proven otherwise. So officials can be convicted on corruption not despite there being no evidence that they are corrupt, but because they can't prove that they aren't corrupt. It's a really interesting approach.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Africans were dealt a raw hand, but a non zero percentage of the continental misfortune is self inflicted and confrontation with this notion is a painful reflection for /r/Africacels
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Another problem with Africa is that gigantic gap of development. Just 150 years ago all of central Africa and most of Southern Africa was composed of a bunch of scattered tribal villages, many people there today are the grandchildren of hunter gatherers and the closest I can find in Latam to that are the indigenous peoples, most of whom live in total destitution, starting from a base zero is a nightmare, they are doomed to poverty for another century.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Botswana pulled it off, despite having similar contraints.
It's very hard to do anything successful when a third of your country is r-slurred (as opposed to 15% or so).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Also
Reminder that country is a success story, reading Africa's stats is depressing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
A lot of this has to do with the nonsensical and arbitrary borders. A bunch of disparate ethnic groups are haphazardly grouped together under ostensible nation-states which are anything but, and they can't afford to fracture and reorganize because Africa is still in the resource exploitation stage of development where land = money = power.
So for example, Nigeria would be way better off if it just split the coast off from the backwards inland areas, but because there might be resources there, they won't. And all this is because African borders didn't develop organically (yes, through bloody conflict), but through European negotiation - something which unfortunately will never be undone.
Not to say that I blame the Europeans for it, they only did what anyone else would have done, Africa was there for the taking, I'm just saying the lines on the map, as they are today, determine quite a lot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The thing is they don't even need an authoritarian leader to improve. Botswana has the healthiest democracy in Africa and they've had fantastic economic growth since independence. They just need to stop constantly kicking off and build trust with foreign economies, the victim mentality that surrounds any western involvement in their countries is doing massive harm
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Botswana is a great case of a democracy developing in Africa with no coups nor civil wars, I'm rooting for them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Curious if they have another graph like that with Rwanda added in. I keep hearing that the country has really blossomed into a healthy country post-genocide, which is really great to hear if it's true.
Botswana and Namibia are probably the two African countries I want to visit the most. My goal is to visit at least 1 country on every continent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's done remarkably well for itself given its recent past but has a long way to go developmentally. From what I've heard, Kagame's characterization of it as an emerging tech hub is mostly aspirational. Still a regional success story tho.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
so you're telling me that genocide leads to a healthier nation in the long run then
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm unaware of the situation surrounding rwanda, but from a general perspective if you have two ethnic groups that are constantly at war with each other, and then one of them simply stops existing, then there is no more conflict necessary and you can actually look to do things other than shoot each other like have a real country and a real government. Logically it makes sense as one of the solutions when racial conflict is at an extreme level. It doesn't really apply to non shithole countries though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
They're still very poor but considering where they started post genocide they've been doing pretty well, they've started to pull away from Mozambique and are rapidly approaching Zambia.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Literally all you need is to engage with the global market. That means a government that isn't getting toppled every couple years, actually pay your debts, strong legal and private property framework. Companies will do the rest for you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context