What would better African borders look like?

[Expat]

It's often said that African countries were set up by colonial powers with little regard for the different types of people who lived within their arbitrary borders.

So what would more sensible African borders look like? Are we talking states based on tribal lines, linguistic lines, religious lines? Are we talking more super-states that allow a kind of federalism to emerge? Is there in fact a way to improve the lot of Africans by simply changing borders?

I found a somewhat unhelpful and jumbled map that gives an ok breakdown of possible linguistic borders, but not a very clear notion of if countries centered on individual ethnic groups would even be possible.

 

[Devolved]

It would be difficult to solve every border problem in such a large continent.

As you probably know one of the first things the Africans did when they formed the OAU was to guarrantee the borders.

To be honest when you look at the problems in Africa they have done well to keep to the present boundaries without going to war. There are very few examples of invasion in post colonial Africa.

You have Somalia vs Ethiopia and the Tanzanian overthrow of Idi Amin.

There have been many interventions but not wars over border issues.

Creating borders along tribal lines would create too many countries with some of them too poor to even get their ambassador to the UN.

One thing that could have been done better would have been to give Eritrea indepence in 1962 instead of giving it to Ethiopia. That caused a lot of trouble and retarded the development of East Africa.

Nigeria may yet be the Killing field of the next generation so maybe a two state solution based on religion would be better and same for the Sudan (which is finally doing that now).

On the whole however, the borders have not been Africa's biggest problem.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Since you're talking after 1900, the Colonial borders are all you can get, since they were the administrative regions. Also, it's very difficult to draw borders on tribal, linguistic and religous grounds in Africa, since people don't live in homogenous societies, and never have.

 

[Graehame]

Most of the borders in the non-colonized parts of the world have been based on defensible frontiers, & the linguistic & cultural homogeneity came later. The Rhein frontier between France & Germany, the Pyrenees between France & Spain, the Alps between Italy & the rest of Europe, & so forth.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Most of the borders in the non-colonized parts of the world have been based on defensible frontiers, & the linguistic & cultural homogeneity came later. The Rhein frontier between France & Germany, the Pyrenees between France & Spain, the Alps between Italy & the rest of Europe, & so forth.

That's not entirely true - it's pretty complicated. That's certainly part of it, but cultural, historical, and economic units are also important to the formation of nations and borders.

 

[Graehame]

That's not entirely true - it's pretty complicated. That's certainly part of it, but cultural, historical, and economic units are also important to the formation of nations and borders.

True, but my posts generally run 100 lines or more. I'm trying to cut down.

 

[Expat]

I put this in post-1900 because that's when independence is almost certain to be granted with any recognizable POD but reading your posts it seems obvious now that some sort of alternate Scramble or even an entirely different attitude during the initial colonization period is more in order.

If you don't mind me not moving the thread for continuity's sake: what would a more thoughtful colonization of Africa look like just in terms of ethno-linguistic issues?

Obviously as little oppression as possible or at least investing in the human development of colonies would be brilliant, but are there any significant ways that ethno-linguistic relationships can be respected (perhaps encouraged) throughout any significant regions of the continent?

 

[Cináed]

Well, many of the indigenous African kingdoms which were conquered during the Scramble would be a good place to start. These had often forged centralised systems of government, so keeping their borders more or less intact provides a good template.

Off the top of my head: Rwanda, Burundi, Basotho, Zulu, Ndebele, Gaza Nguni, a greater Zanzibar, Buganda, Ankole, Bunyoro, Toro, the Hausa states (and, by extension, the Sokoto Caliphate), the Yoruba city states (union of Yoruba peoples...?) Dahomey, Ashanti, Mossi, the Fulani sultanates, some sort of Ibo state, two or three Tuareg states, and possibly the personal fiefdoms of Msiri, Mirambo, Samori and Tippu Tip. And, of course, you have the independent states of Liberia and Ethiopia.

The problem is that there are a lot of places which have no state organisation, so how you bring them into the state system without assigning rule to a more organisaed nearby agency, I don't know.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Well, many of the indigenous African kingdoms which were conquered during the Scramble would be a good place to start. These had often forged centralised systems of government, so keeping their borders more or less intact provides a good template.

Off the top of my head: Rwanda, Burundi, Basotho, Zulu, Ndebele, Gaza Nguni, a greater Zanzibar, Buganda, Ankole, Bunyoro, Toro, the Hausa states (and, by extension, the Sokoto Caliphate), the Yoruba city states (union of Yoruba peoples...?) Dahomey, Ashanti, Mossi, the Fulani sultanates, some sort of Ibo state, two or three Tuareg states, and possibly the personal fiefdoms of Msiri, Mirambo, Samori and Tippu Tip. And, of course, you have the independent states of Liberia and Ethiopia.

The problem is that there are a lot of places which have no state organisation, so how you bring them into the state system without assigning rule to a more organisaed nearby agency, I don't know.

Well, the religous problems would in some cases diminish, but you'd still end up with states with ethnic diversity, and the prospect for ethnic conflicts. Also, some of the Colonies were more or less based on old kingdoms.

 

[Tyr]

As with most things in history it isn't as easy as the old speech about how the Europeans just randomly drew lines on a map everywhere completely ignoring how things were on the ground.
Most of Africa, like much of Europe and India and elsewhere, was pretty messy ethnically. Tribes weren't all neatly grouped into areas like in modern western Europe where you can clearly see lines of French and German (even today there's still some spillage there). They were scattered over a wide area with all sorts of enclaves and exclaves and all that sort of thing.
If you make one border so all of tribe A are in the same country then you'll likely be screwing over tribes B and C and splitting them into different countries.
The best thing to do in Africa is far more to look at the geography. Vaguely go by the tribes but far more important are decent natural borders.

Or hell. If we're just drawing ideal African borders with little regards to reality lets have the entire continent as one united country

 

[yourworstnightmare]

United Africa!! I like it!! The only borders that would make sense!

 

[Snowstalker]

Give the whole thing to Lebanon.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I'd like to think that if Britain had a bit more time and money (say no WW1 or 2) they might have made a better job of making Nigeria, Sierre Leone, Ghana, the East African Federation and the Central African Federation work. Say by developing proper local government or political elites with experience in governing, rather than the rather rushed and unstable OTL versions.

Probably wishful thinking on my part though

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Delay colonization for a couple more decades and spend that extra time educating and training a local African elite to administer these future countries.

 

[T3h_shammy]

More importantly why are countries like the Central African Republic even exisiting

 

[yourworstnightmare]

More importantly why are countries like the Central African Republic even exisiting

Lack of a better name.

 

[Astrodragon]

I'd like to think that if Britain had a bit more time and money (say no WW1 or 2) they might have made a better job of making Nigeria, Sierre Leone, Ghana, the East African Federation and the Central African Federation work. Say by developing proper local government or political elites with experience in governing, rather than the rather rushed and unstable OTL versions.

Probably wishful thinking on my part though

Something like that was the original idea, however they calculated it would take 40-50 years. Basically 2 generations to get a stable civil service and government structure and get people used to the idea so it would be sustainable, and allowing enough time for the rough tribal situation to be mainly sorted.

Thanks to America, this never happened.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Something like that was the original idea, however they calculated it would take 40-50 years. Basically 2 generations to get a stable civil service and government structure and get people used to the idea so it would be sustainable, and allowing enough time for the rough tribal situation to be mainly sorted.

Thanks to America, this never happened.

And I guessed the fact that the Africans were growing tired of being ruled by foreigners didn't help.

 

[Astrodragon]

And I guessed the fact that the Africans were growing tired of being ruled by foreigners didn't help.

No, but given a sensible plan with percieved targets along the way, it would probably have worked. The British were rather succesful at containing the actively rebellions.
I'm sure there would have been tensions as to the speed of things, but with steady progress being made it would have at least stood a much better chance that what happened in OTL

 

[zoomar]

How about the whole thing British Empire pink!