WI: Slower Decolonization

hey, all. i thought i'd put this idea out there.

the occurrence and non-occurrence of decolonization is pretty frequent in ATLs. while there are credibly arguments that decolonization was almost certainly a good thing since it essentially ended widespread imperialism (at least as far as most people are concerned), and i don't necessarily disagree with that, i think that decolonization happened too quickly and too suddenly: the decolonized world has suffered ever since from disease, war, and natural disasters.

now, suppose that decolonization still happens, but much more slowly. maybe some of these colonies eventually opt for dominion status or equivalent, maybe some of them remain part of larger empires for several more decades, perhaps even through to the present-day depending on their situation. in any case, i think the various colonies would be better off with a slower decolonization since it would give them more time to develop both infrastructure and government systems, which would presumably improve their chances of not collapsing into civil war. that's not to say they wouldn't still have problems, of course.

what does everyone think?
 
hey, all. i thought i'd put this idea out there.

the occurrence and non-occurrence of decolonization is pretty frequent in ATLs. while there are credibly arguments that decolonization was almost certainly a good thing since it essentially ended widespread imperialism (at least as far as most people are concerned), and i don't necessarily disagree with that, i think that decolonization happened too quickly and too suddenly: the decolonized world has suffered ever since from disease, war, and natural disasters.

now, suppose that decolonization still happens, but much more slowly. maybe some of these colonies eventually opt for dominion status or equivalent, maybe some of them remain part of larger empires for several more decades, perhaps even through to the present-day depending on their situation. in any case, i think the various colonies would be better off with a slower decolonization since it would give them more time to develop both infrastructure and government systems, which would presumably improve their chances of not collapsing into civil war. that's not to say they wouldn't still have problems, of course.

what does everyone think?

Generally speaking, no. If the colonizer had not invested money and time in building infrastructure up to that point, why would they suddenly do differently thereafter? One of the biggest problems is that the colonizer and subsequent regime had the mentality of extracting wealth rather than creating it. The concept of building infrastructure requires a broad mentality not just within the government but also other institutions such as banks, churches, courts, police and others that they are part of building something rather than extracting. You can build infrastructure but if the mindset doesnt change then the wealth will be extracted via corruption. Again, most colonizers were in the business of extracting rather than creating wealth so them holding on longer doesnt change this.
 
A slower decolonization would most likely result in a longer more bloody fight in which the natives try to end said colonial system. The end result could very well be less democracy and less development throughout the former colonial world, and quite possibly throughout Europe too.

Much has to happen to make the colonial system positive for the vast amount of colonial subjects.
 
What if the United Nations stepped up for a globalized effort in decolonizing while building independent nations (infrastructure, education, political stability and democracy) to go forward?
 
What if the United Nations stepped up for a globalized effort in decolonizing while building independent nations (infrastructure, education, political stability and democracy) to go forward?

Yeah...
That's not really going to happen...

The colonized countries really don't want foreign interference when it comes to their independence...
Even to this day, it can be seen in the form of a strong emphasis on sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs...
 
In South Asia, we'd see more colonial famines, like the Bengal Famine of 1942 and the Late Victorian famines. Hindu-Muslim violence would probably happen on schedule at similar intensity; Partition itself might be avoided, but the Punjabis would have massacred each other anyway, and Britain would probably encourage it to distract the Indians from fighting the British Empire.

In Africa, I'm not sure how big of a change it'd be. The first state to decolonize, Ghana, isn't unusually successful or well-governed (whereas India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka all are by African standards). The Portuguese colonies, which got independence later than the British and French ones, are worse off than the rest, but that is more about Portuguese colonialism than about when they got independence. So much of postcolonial African history involves Cold War proxy wars that any TL producing later colonialism would create many butterflies. You'd be rolling the dice again, and the result might be the same, or better, or worse.

Southeast Asia is somewhere in the middle. The Americans killed off 10% of Indo-China... and then Pol Pot one-upped everyone and killed off 30% of Cambodia, in four years. Thailand was never really a colony. Burma had a truly awful government soon after independence, but living standards were still higher under the junta than under the British, and the sorts of totalitarianism and dispossession the junta engaged in were routine under colonialism.
 

guinazacity

Banned
Generally speaking, no. If the colonizer had not invested money and time in building infrastructure up to that point, why would they suddenly do differently thereafter? One of the biggest problems is that the colonizer and subsequent regime had the mentality of extracting wealth rather than creating it. The concept of building infrastructure requires a broad mentality not just within the government but also other institutions such as banks, churches, courts, police and others that they are part of building something rather than extracting. You can build infrastructure but if the mindset doesnt change then the wealth will be extracted via corruption. Again, most colonizers were in the business of extracting rather than creating wealth so them holding on longer doesnt change this.

What he said.

You can't turn colonialism around that late in the game. Colonialism is about extraction and domination, not uplifting.
 
You would probably need to avoid the world wars.

Britain did have a long term plan for India self rule building on a British educated native ruling class (judges lawyers, MP's etc) with british style elite schools and universities in India and/or also going on to a British university. (the Morley-Minto reforms)
 
Britain did have a long term plan for India self rule building on a British educated native ruling class (judges lawyers, MP's etc) with british style elite schools and universities in India and/or also going on to a British university. (the Morley-Minto reforms)

interesting. what do you think are the odds that Britain would so something similar elsewhere in the empire, particularly Africa?
 

guinazacity

Banned
You can in Portugal. They have actual evidence to be able to show that they made some parts of Angola nice to live in.

After the whole ultramarine war? seriously? Angola endured more than 20 years of civil war even after independence due to portugal's extraordinary incompetence.



The portuguese should have listened to Camões, the glory of ruling is a vain one.
 
The relationship between a colony and empire is innately unequal* and therefore unstable. Trying to have a larger core region at home by expanding the periphery abroad, particularly across a sea or ocean, never works.

EDIT: *: unequal without justification.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The problem is it's not in the colonizing nation's interest to build strong institutions in a colony. A colony is not supposed to become independent (I know the contrary was sometimes used to justify Imperialism in the propaganda). The interest of the colonizer is to extract as much as possible from the colony. That won't change. On the contrary if there is a time limit they'd basically try to suck the colony dry before time runs out.
 
Top