Politics, News & Issues >
International Politics (Other)
RSS FeedIs independence a panacea for struggling, underdeveloped countries?
Results so far:
| Yes | 49% | 67 votes | Total: 138 votes | |
| No | 51% | 71 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIf you had asked me this question ten years ago, my answer would have been a flat NO. I have however reflected on this over time and come to the conclusion that Independence has simply left underdeveloped countries paralyzed. Hear me out on this. To fully understand my point of view, you have to look back at the systems that were in place in most underdeveloped countries before they were colonized.There was a checks and balances system that ensured that goals were met, resources distributed fairly there were repercussions for wrongdoing. In other words before the magna carta, most of these countries had efficient systems that ran in the way that was understood by everyone.
The advent of colonization disrupted the smooth running of affairs. Even though more resources were discovered, the colonialists perfected and showed the natives how to corrupt the system. Elitism became the order of the day. Power that had been passed on without much farce, had now become a tool for self aggrandizement.
Even though capitalism has a lot of positive aspects to it, it may not have been the correct system to introduce to all the underdeveloped countries. The partitioning that was introduced to underdeveloped countries in Africa for instance; created tribalism that in part created poor governance. Marginalizing certain tribes became easier even in places where people lived in harmony before. Also due to the fact that families found themselves separated by the created borders into two different countries.
The fact of the matter is that even though most of these countries gained "independence", they're still highly dependent upon their former masters. They continue to borrow heavily from the western countries at exorbitant interest rates which in turn creates more dependency.
Most of these underdeveloped countries have not quite recovered from the disruption of their old systems. The checks and balances systems that colonialists put in places are easily manipulated. The same dictators pick the judges that make decisions at the high courts in their countries. This ensures that those who abuse power can never be brought to justice and fleece heir economies dry.
The irony of the matter is that maybe the colonialists would be better at running the economies in the underdeveloped countries because these countries are struggling that's for sure. Institutions ran smoothly, infrastructures were well maintained. Maybe it's time to ask for help.
Learn more about this author, Phoebe Odingo.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
No
No. Independence is not a panacea for struggling, underdeveloped countries.
There have been numerous underdeveloped countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean that have attained independence in the past amidst euphoric celebrations and sky-high expectations, only to later face earth-bound reality and the gravity of one or more of the harsh interrelated problems of corruption, resource shortages, famine, pestilence, tribal conflict and civil war.
However, to paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi's riposte to the British colonial Governor-General, most struggling, underdeveloped countries would prefer "misrule by their own leaders rather than the misrule of an occupying power".
The country of Zimbabwe is a textbook example of how an independent country, formerly colonial Rhodesia, quickly degenerated from a top-tier prosperous state to one of the poorest countries in Africa. The economy of Zimbabwe has been disastrously mismanaged and the once thriving and productive farms under the colonial Rhodesian government have become derelict. Large numbers of the poor citizens are starving in the former colony that used to be the breadbasket of the region. Most of the colonial landowners have emigrated taking their skills and valuable know-how with them. The government of Zimbabwe has apportioned many of the farms to the formerly landless peasants. Although this was the correct decision taking into account the injustices committed under the colonial government, the new owners, the liberated citizens, have not had been provided the necessary training and lack the requisite experience in managing agricultural concerns. The autocratic leadership also does not tolerate dissent and critics have been imprisoned and tortured for publicizing the flaws of the regime. The corrupt leadership expropriates the nation's wealth and lives extravagantly while the citizens are mired in poverty and lead a precarious existence that ends tragically for many.
The citizens of Zimbabwe, who used to be serfs in the colonial government of Rhodesia, now find themselves pawns of the ruling regime. They have traded their former existence, which was imprisonment where food was available to a dubious freedom where they are starving and not allowed to voice their despair.
Although, Zimbabwe represents one of the more egregious examples of independence not delivering the promised benefits to an expectant population, there are may other regimes in Africa like Sudan, Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi, to specifically name a few, that are currently experiencing or have suffered periods of corruption, resource shortages, famine, pestilence, tribal conflict and civil war.
Independence needs to be accompanied with wise leadership, pragmatic policies, and an enlightened emphasis of placing the welfare of the citizens above partisan politics and special interests otherwise, independence is definitely not a panacea for struggling, underdeveloped countries.
Learn more about this author, Ravi Embar.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- International Politics (Other)
- Should England have granted knighthood to Salman Rushdie, given his troubled reputation in the Muslim world?
- Do many foreigners see the US as a corrupt "Consumption Empire?"
- Should Alaska be an independent country?
- Should the US engage in two-party discussions with North Korea?
- Should the US build a border fence on the southern border with Mexico?
- Is a Single World Government the way forward?
