Decolonisation without uti possidetis

Better or worse?

  • Better

    Votes: 14 28.6%
  • Worse

    Votes: 25 51.0%
  • The same

    Votes: 10 20.4%

  • Total voters
    49

Zagan

Donor
Would the World be a better place (less conflict etc) if decolonization proceeded as in OTL with just one difference: Instead of uti possidetis, the newly independent countries to have borders based on ethnic, religious and tribal affinities (maybe with some economic aspects taken into consideration as well)
 
Given that the two highest-profile examples of decolonization without uti possidetis are India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine, my first instinct is to say that widespread use of the practice would lead to worse conflicts. On the other hand, it didn't work out badly in Micronesia, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Comoros or the British Cameroons.

At a guess, I'd say that partition or consolidation of colonies can lead to improved outcomes if there's a democratic decision in favor, clear and obvious boundaries (IMO it's no accident that three of the places where it worked well were island groups), and guarantees of safety and civil rights for those caught on the "wrong" side of the new border. Otherwise, abandoning uti possidetis would only restructure post-colonial conflicts rather than resolving them.
 
Would the World be a better place (less conflict etc) if decolonization proceeded as in OTL with just one difference: Instead of uti possidetis, the newly independent countries to have borders based on ethnic, religious and tribal affinities (maybe with some economic aspects taken into consideration as well)

The big problem, of course, is how do you determine these ethnic, religious, and tribal affinities? Do you draw the borders per plurality? How convoluted do you make the borders? If there's a mixed village, do you make the inhabitants choose sides? Does each tribe become a sovereign state?
 
the newly independent countries to have borders based on ethnic, religious and tribal affinities
This is basicly impossible without widescale ethnic cleansing. Usualy the borders aren't as clear as they appear on maps and many people of different tribes/ethnicity live next door to each other.
 
No, it would be a complete disaster to try and work that out. Lots of genocides and wars to reclaim lost territory.

The idea that Europeans just came in and randomly drew lines this cutting up nice natural ethnic boundaries is a big myth.
Europe has gone through centuries of war, migration, nationalism and genocide to get to where it is today with reasonably neat ethnic borders. Africa didn't go through this, so it's ethnic groups tend to be rather patchy and spread out.
 
Here is an ethno-linguistic map of Africa:


Try giving all of these groups a country. It can't be done, at least not without making a ton of countries that make Rhode Island look big. And this map also ignores resources, which is extremely important because some of these states would not be economically viable in the slightest.
 
I don't think there really is any effective way to deal with decolonisation, so I don't really think this would make any major difference worth the effort.
 
I think the bigger issue is the relatively underdeveloped sense of national identity that a lot of these colonies had, which made it difficult for state-building...
 
Would the World be a better place (less conflict etc) if decolonization proceeded as in OTL with just one difference: Instead of uti possidetis, the newly independent countries to have borders based on ethnic, religious and tribal affinities (maybe with some economic aspects taken into consideration as well)

Definitely. Neat borders can't always be accomplished; but the international community should have tried to respect the principle of self-determination as far as possible, instead of grouping or separating communities together by almost random colonial lines.
 
Here is an ethno-linguistic map of Africa:


Try giving all of these groups a country. It can't be done, at least not without making a ton of countries that make Rhode Island look big. And this map also ignores resources, which is extremely important because some of these states would not be economically viable in the slightest.


And lots of those ethnic groups are colonial constructs anyway.
 
Europe has gone through centuries of war, migration, nationalism and genocide to get to where it is today with reasonably neat ethnic borders. Africa didn't go through this, so it's ethnic groups tend to be rather patchy and spread out.

Indeed. People forget that even 100 years ago, Europe's ethnic boundaries were far from as clean as today, with Hungarians in Romania, Germans all across central and eastern Europe, dozens of little linguistic groups that have since been assimilated away, Swedes in Finland, Finns in Sweden, Norwegians and Russians cross-settling along the coasts of the northern seas, Jews everywhere often still speaking Yiddish or Ladino, Norse holdovers in the Scottish isles, Turks in Greece, Greeks in Turkey, Italians in Dalmatia...
 
Definitely. Neat borders can't always be accomplished; but the international community should have tried to respect the principle of self-determination as far as possible, instead of grouping or separating communities together by almost random colonial lines.

This ignores that the native elites wanted to keep the current borders and not engage in border adjustments. Their concern was to begin self rule and not open up a can of worms of moving the borders.

The process of decolonization wasn't solely imposed by Europeans. It was a collaborative project based on what the local elites wanted. The European colonial powers generally gave in to what the locals wanted which is why decolonization happened much faster than what the Europeans originally anticipated/planned.
 
And lots of those ethnic groups are colonial constructs anyway.
True, but after 70 years or so of colonialism formerly made up ethnicities start to become real. Look at the Hutu and the Tutsi. When the Europeans came they were clearly different groups, but there was a certain amount of mobility in there and not genocidal hatred. After decades of European rule they were hard and fast ethnicities and they despised each other. I suspect a similar thing happened to other ethnicities across Africa.
 
You would likely get much more conflict and the bloodshed in the short term, but more stability in the long term. The one nation in sub-Saharan Africa that did have one clearly dominant Africa group was Botswana, which has done far better than most. The problem with ethnically divided nations is that each side votes for their own candidate in elections, no matter how bad he is, for fear of the other ethnic group getting in. If you have one clearly dominant group, they don't have that worry and will start holding leaders to account.
 
You would likely get much more conflict and the bloodshed in the short term, but more stability in the long term. The one nation in sub-Saharan Africa that did have one clearly dominant Africa group was Botswana, which has done far better than most. The problem with ethnically divided nations is that each side votes for their own candidate in elections, no matter how bad he is, for fear of the other ethnic group getting in. If you have one clearly dominant group, they don't have that worry and will start holding leaders to account.

Lesotho, Swaziland, and Somalia all have one dominant ethnic group and they're all doing poorly. Somalia is a failed state, Swaziland is an absolute monarchy, and Lesotho is a very unstable democracy with fears of a military coup growing daily.

Botswana's success is far more complex than just having a single dominant ethnic group.
 
This ignores that the native elites wanted to keep the current borders and not engage in border adjustments. Their concern was to begin self rule and not open up a can of worms of moving the borders.

The process of decolonization wasn't solely imposed by Europeans. It was a collaborative project based on what the local elites wanted. The European colonial powers generally gave in to what the locals wanted which is why decolonization happened much faster than what the Europeans originally anticipated/planned.

Were they "genuinely" against border adjustments, or just didn't want the problems and complications of having to enact such adjustments themselves?
I could be wrong, but I believe a collaborative effort to replace the old borders in the early phase of decolonization would have avoided many of the usual problems even in the short term. Not to mention the long-term benefits.
 
Top