Authority stealing depends hugely on opaqueness, the ability of elected individuals to have privacy in their supposedly PUBLIC dealings.
Thieves in position of authority benefit from EXPERT status i.e. citizens do not feel qualified to monitor the activities the activities of the elected. Officials openly flout their ill gotten wealth and the citizens are in awe, praying to God for a chance to eat the 'National cake.'
Just last month, I talked to at least 10 ordinary persons. And these 'educated' individuals couldn't suspend disbelieve and imagine how much better their world would be if they could keep their representatives in check.
They all believed that their votes didn't matter. And it's quite true. In the last Nigerian election for instance, individuals from the Igbo tribe weren't given voters card because they wouldn't vote for the incumbent party.
I've spent a ton of time thinking about the state of Africa. And I don't see a way out short of a bloody revolution.
Even then, history says a revolution would only replace one set of tyrants with another.
It would help to think on a country-by-country basis. Generalizing over the entire continent of 54 countries is not useful, I have noticed people go with their feelings rather than facts when the topic is Africa - even on HN.
By way of example, I have been impressed by South Africa's checks and balances over the last few years. A dedicated public protector, independent judiciary, a free press and a robust opposition.
> I've spent a ton of time thinking about the state of Africa. And I don't see a way out short of a bloody revolution
I have done the same, and the conclusion I came to is that African countries need a strong middle class. Poverty encourages patronage-politics and keeps the populace worrying about bread-and-butter issues rather than the more abstract issues of policies.
If you (the reader, not parent) have the time to evaluate your biases, I would appreciate it if you would take a minute to make a Self Assessment: answer the following question in your head and do a google search to find the real answer.
1. How many active conflicts are in Africa? How many countries are affected (out of 54)
While I believe in generalization as a useful tool, your final questions were useful exercises. For the sake of others, my research suggests the following:
1. Countries involved in active conflicts with over 100 deaths/year include Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria (x2), Cameroon, Niger (x2), Chad, Sudan (x3), Libya, Egypt (x2), South Sudan, Ethiopia (x3), Democratic Republic of the Congo (x2), Burundi (x4), Algeria, Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Central African Republic, Mali, and Mozambique. This is 21 or so separate conflicts in 19 of the 54 countries. (There are at least 8 smaller conflicts involving 4 more countries.)
2. In the last 20 years, there have been notable famines threatening Sudan, Ethiopia (x2), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Niger (x2), Chad, Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda, Senegal, Gambia, Mauritania, Mali, and Burkina Faso. At present, there appears to only be one famine, affecting half of South Sudan.
All in all, it appears that the expected number of active conflicts per country per year is 40--50%, and the expected number of countries involved in famines (again per country per year) is 1--1.5%.
I think your definition of armed conflict is more expansive than mine, because my research[1][2] says 16 African countries have ongoing countries. This works out to just under 30%. Perhaps you were counting belligerent nations rather than countries where conflicts occur as I was. If I were to calculate by actual geographic area,my guess is I would be well under 7% of inhabited regions, and < 1% of African population directly affected.
I too was guilty of generalization as we when I asked about countries involved because the conflicts are highly localized, it's never the entire country that's a warzone (excepting Somalia).
Bonus 2-part question:A) What is the current total number of African warlords? [Thanks Hollywood] B) what is the probability that a random African resides in an area controlled by a warlord?
> my guess is ... < 1% of African population directly affected
I have done some research into the proportion of the population affected. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 1% of the population of Africa is a "person of concern" originating from just five of the ongoing conflicts in Africa: Sudan, South Sudan, Nigeria, DRC, and Somalia. All in all, it appears that about 1.6% of the population of Africa is a "person of concern" of the UNHCR. The majority of this population is in the class "internally displaced persons (IDPs) protected/assisted by UNHCR, including people in IDP-like situations".
I both gave my definition of conflict (100 deaths/year) and a list of the countries involved, so it should be trivial to compare details. The difference is likely due to Kenya (which had more than 100 deaths in 2016 related to Somalia), Burkina Faso and Tunisia (which had a combined ~100 related to the insurgency in Algeria/the Maghreb), and/or Mozambique (which had over 100 related to RENAMO).
I do think it'd be interesting to estimate the percent of the population affected.
- Help someone get control over the country, through elections or by force. Or just buy whoever wins.
- Approve loans at high interest rates and allow that person to keep the majority of the money so it never gets spent in the country itself.
- When the country defaults on the debt, start a re-structuring process involving the neocolonization: privatize everything, pass unequal trade treaties, pass unfair labor regulations... effectively enslave the country.
Low wages and no social mobility and no influence in government is almost undistinguishable from slavery. And that's the situation in many poor countries.
