Suppose Thomas Sankara survives the coup attempt in 1987. How would Burkina Faso have continued to develop, and what influence would it have had on the region? Could it have been approaching developed status by now?
That matters?btw he was one of the most handsome world leaders in the 80s , again unlike most african leaders
Sankara was well-intentioned, but ultimately no dictator has made an African country prosperous. Eventually he would've passed away, resulting in a violent succession struggle, or rebel groups would have taken up arms against him. Enlightened absolutism isn't a useful development model.
If Sankara had lived longer, he probably would have just turned into a West Africa version of Hugo Chavez. Sankara was well-intentioned, but ultimately no dictator has made an African country prosperous. Eventually he would've passed away, resulting in a violent succession struggle, or rebel groups would have taken up arms against him. Enlightened absolutism isn't a useful development model.
Place like Burkina Faso need more Seretse Khamas and less Thomas Sankaras.
Those have different structures and impulses.While I initially agreed with you, I now think that your theory is flawed. Think of pre-modern societies like the Roman Empire or Imperial China. Consider Saudi-Arabia or contemporary China. There are a lot of examples of autocratic regimes achieving economic development and prosperity, despite the corruption and succession problems affecting authoritarian systems.
If Sankara had lived longer, he probably would have just turned into a West African version of Hugo Chavez.
Sankara was well-intentioned, but ultimately no dictator has made an African country prosperous. Eventually he would've passed away, resulting in a violent succession struggle, or rebel groups would have taken up arms against him. Enlightened absolutism isn't a useful development model.
Place like Burkina Faso need more Seretse Khamas and less Thomas Sankaras.
Sure, Seretse Khama is a good example, but on the other hand, Ethiopia and Rwanda are run by autocratic regimes and they're two of the most rapidly developing countries in the entire world. Sankara he could have raised the standard of living significantly nonetheless.
I can't speak much to Ethiopia's case, but Rwanda's economic growth isn't sustainable. Its made remarkable progress, but around around a third of the state's budget is still financed by foreign aid. Kagame wants to move up the ladder from agriculture and mining to a knowledge and service-oriented economy, but he hasn't allowed the necessary reforms around are expression to make the transition. The Tutsis are justly terrified of handing power back to the Tutsis through majority rule, but winner-take all ethnic politics incentive another Hutu rebel group's formation once the economic bubble bursts.Sure, Seretse Khama is a good example, but on the other hand, Ethiopia and Rwanda are run by autocratic regimes and they're two of the most rapidly developing countries in the entire world. Sankara he could have raised the standard of living significantly nonetheless.
Sankara would've become like almost any other well-intentioned African leader: nothing more than a tin-pot dictator betraying his own ideals after having tasted power for too long.
That is rather judgmental. The reasons for this is not simply because its in africa, but because none of those were really well intentioned. Sankara even had a defense to being corrupted, he lived in a simple hut. He did measures to prevent it. If he did get corrupted, he would not go full Qaddafi.Sankara would've become like almost any other well-intentioned African leader: nothing more than a tin-pot dictator betraying his own ideals after having tasted power for too long.