AHC: Richer more developed Sub Sahara Africa

I watched a YouTube clip on this yesterday. A constant theme is that European colonialism carved up Africa into parts that suited them, governed them each in their own way and them granted independence at different times with different local institutions.

In this case a rationalisation of colonies into larger, uniform units that would be run in a coherent way within these borders and offer opportunities for better decolonisation along more reasonable ethnic and geographical borders should produce better outcomes than OTL. One way for this to happen is German MittelAfrika arising from a CP victory in WW1. At the very least this would avoid the different regimes that lasted into the 60s, replacing it with a single regime and likely a single decolonisation policy without an attachment to borders that the different European countries had IOTL.

As for development, I suppose the Germans were no worse of better than the French, British, Belgians and Portuguese in this regard but with a big swathe of contiguous territory their development might be more uniform rather than OTLs patchwork.
I think the ethnic fracturing within nation-states is overstated as a cause of Africa's problems; witness Somalia which is a) monocultural and b) a complete basket case compared to its more diverse neighbors.

IMO it was the institutions set up during colonialism which lent themselves to an extractive sort of predator state; after independence, the African countries kept much of these institutions, continuing a colonialist-style form of governing. This caused fierce competition over access to power and resources as different people tried to assume the role of the colonizer rather than the colonized. This competition ended up shaping over ethnic lines, but it could just as easily have formed along different lines.

What's needed is reform in the runup to independence that builds better institutions. Not to downplay its problems, but Botswana has been relatively stable post-independence despite the 'resource curse' of its diamonds, and this is a large part thanks to the work of Botswanans and the English colonial authorities during the time of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, which created better institutions than areas which were landgrabbed by white colonists or run as de facto plantations for European interests.
 
I think the ethnic fracturing within nation-states is overstated as a cause of Africa's problems; witness Somalia which is a) monocultural and b) a complete basket case compared to its neighbors.

IMO it was the institutions set up during colonialism which lent themselves to an extractive sort of predator state; after independence, the African countries kept much of these institutions, continuing a colonialist-style form of governing. This caused fierce competition over access to power and resources as different people tried to assume the role of the colonizer rather than the colonized. This competition ended up shaping over ethnic lines, but it could just as easily have formed along different lines.

What's needed is reform in the runup to independence that builds better institutions. Not to downplay its problems, but Botswana has been relatively stable post-independence despite the 'resource curse' of its diamonds, and this is a large part thanks to the work of Botswanans and the English colonial authorities during the time of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, which created better institutions than areas which were landgrabbed by white colonists or run as de facto plantations for European interests.

Alternatively, Botswana works well because it has a massive ethnic majority and its independence leaders were moderate and pragmatic.

Botswana and Ghana are the only two countries in sub-Saharan Africa where political parties are truly national parties, and are not merely tribal associations with thin veneers of ideology.
 
Which was why I added the IIRC (if I recall correctly).

I'm not attacking you for being wildly off-base; your view is shared by the majority of people looking at the situation in Zimbabwe. My point is that whether it's Nkomo or Mugabe, Marxism is the force which destroyed the country. Swapping one Marxist for the other doesn't change that, and arguably makes it worse because the alternate is Ndebele.
 
I'm not attacking you for being wildly off-base; your view is shared by the majority of people looking at the situation in Zimbabwe. My point is that whether it's Nkomo or Mugabe, Marxism is the force which destroyed the country. Swapping one Marxist for the other doesn't change that, and arguably makes it worse because the alternate is Ndebele.
What POD would you propose? Ditching Ian Smith earlier somehow?
 
What POD would you propose? Ditching Ian Smith earlier somehow?

A tricky question. If the only object is to increase GDP without inflation then obviously the exact opposite of what you propose would be the answer. A quick look at Rhodesian exchange rates and economic performance, despite sanctions, reveals that.

Politically, however, that is obviously never going to be tenable without a massive point of departure which effectively renders this WI moot.

The best alternatives would perhaps be:

- Independence on Tiger terms. This probably still leads to a Bush War, but it will be much less brutal than it was in our timeline. No 1968 Constitution, and blacks reach parity in Parliament in the 80s, at which point there's probably a constitutional reform which brings in one man one vote, though probably with permanent white representation in Parliament.
- Lord Carrington chokes on a golf ball and dies in 1978. This leads Margaret Thatcher to recognise the Internal Settlement in 1979. Once recognised by Britain, the US will follow suit in a matter of hours. The remainder of the West in the coming days. The Bush War dies down, and Muzorewa gradually gains acceptance in black Africa.

The end of either of these roads is a moderate black government, along the lines of the ANC in SA from 1994-2000.
 
Alternatively, Botswana works well because it has a massive ethnic majority and its independence leaders were moderate and pragmatic.

Botswana and Ghana are the only two countries in sub-Saharan Africa where political parties are truly national parties, and are not merely tribal associations with thin veneers of ideology.
You may be right, but historically the Tswana were divided into multiple kingdoms that did fight with each other; the project of nationalism might have worked to create a 'Botswanan' identity, but there's no reason an alt-historical Tswana polity couldn't have gone the way of Somalia, with pre-colonial loyalties becoming the basis for violent conflict.
 
You may be right, but historically the Tswana were divided into multiple kingdoms that did fight with each other; the project of nationalism might have worked to create a 'Botswanan' identity, but there's no reason an alt-historical Tswana polity couldn't have gone the way of Somalia, with pre-colonial loyalties becoming the basis for violent conflict.

Hence my second qualifier.
 
A major problem for Subsaharan Africa is that population growth ate GDP growth up. If Africa could limit its population growth to a more modest growth, the countries would stay more wealthy. The simplest way to do that is a greater focus on universal education in the colonial period.
 
A major problem for Subsaharan Africa is that population growth ate GDP growth up. If Africa could limit its population growth to a more modest growth, the countries would stay more wealthy. The simplest way to do that is a greater focus on universal education in the colonial period.
OTOH they stand to have a rapid gain in the coming decades as they undergo the demographic transition. There are a ton of young people in Africa and birth rates are dropping.
 
Keeps Americo Liberian Hegemony and as time passes, they would certainly share power with the natives.
Would they? Maybe I'm mistaken but I was under the impression that the history of Liberia largely involved the Americo-Liberians setting themselves up as a ruling elite centralising political and economic power amongst themselves. The history of other African states doesn't seem all that promising for their just deciding to give up their privileged status.
 
Botswana is arguably sub saharan Africa's best success story. It's a stable, Democratic country with vast mineral wealth where everything has almost gone right for them since independence.

It's gdp per capita is $7,000, only half of Chile and Uruguay ($14,000+), but much closer to other South American nations such as Argentina and Brazil ($8,000).

Getting the rest of Sub Saharan Africa up to the level of Botswana is possible, getting it to Chilean and Uruguayan levels of wealth however with a post independence pod might be hard.

As mentioned, pre civil war 1980s Liberia had a gdp per capita at almost $2,000. If it had 40 more years of stability, it'd probably be at Botswana's current level. I disagree with Slime Bob's argument that more Americo-Liberians would fix Liberia's issues.
 
Botswana is arguably sub saharan Africa's best success story. It's a stable, Democratic country with vast mineral wealth where everything has almost gone right for them since independence.

It's gdp per capita is $7,000, only half of Chile and Uruguay ($14,000+), but much closer to other South American nations such as Argentina and Brazil ($8,000).

Getting the rest of Sub Saharan Africa up to the level of Botswana is possible, getting it to Chilean and Uruguayan levels of wealth however with a post independence pod might be hard.

As mentioned, pre civil war 1980s Liberia had a gdp per capita at almost $2,000. If it had 40 more years of stability, it'd probably be at Botswana's current level. I disagree with Slime Bob's argument that more Americo-Liberians would fix Liberia's issues.
Liberia lacked the manpower and an educated and profesional people, Most of them are Americo Liberians and the civilized natives. What I am saying, If they got more Educated people, as most of the educated people are Americo Liberians in that time period.
 
Would they? Maybe I'm mistaken but I was under the impression that the history of Liberia largely involved the Americo-Liberians setting themselves up as a ruling elite centralising political and economic power amongst themselves. The history of other African states doesn't seem all that promising for their just deciding to give up their privileged status.
they were slowly giving rights to the natives since the 60s and representation. by the modern day the situation would likely be more like America or South African race relations which isnt great but a improvement. in general under Wiliam Tubman Liberia was regarded as the switzerland of Africa and saw some of the largest economic growth in the world for decades. if more sustainable development is planned for the slump in the 80s wouldnt happen and you could see Liberia become Africas first developed nation.
 
they were slowly giving rights to the natives since the 60s and representation. by the modern day the situation would likely be more like America or South African race relations which isnt great but a improvement. in general under Wiliam Tubman Liberia was regarded as the switzerland of Africa and saw some of the largest economic growth in the world for decades. if more sustainable development is planned for the slump in the 80s wouldnt happen and you could see Liberia become Africas first developed nation.
They lacked the proffesionals and educated people,, that is part of the reason why they cannot sustain it. If they got more Americo Liberians and more immigration that is educated and profesionals. Though they have a growing number of Educated and Proffesional Natives, they severely needed more of it, to transform and industrialize themselves to develop liberia. They lost most of the profesionals, most of them being americo Liberians during the Liberian civil war due to persecution of Americo Liberians. They went out of the country
 
Last edited:
I doesn't take much, but had Ethiopia not been considered a WW2 cobelligerent, and instead just given back what they owned pre-1936, Eritrea could've gone indipendent and not have its economy wrecked by the Dergs or their independence war. It wouldn't likely have reached Egypt's levels, but I'd say they'd be much better off than they are now.

Angola could use having Portugal peacefully leave the area somehow, but I have no idea how that could happen without a previous colonial war by the same.
 
Top