I think it’s more common for dictators to take power via revolution or coup d’etat. Not many are democratically elected. Bear in mind that historically most dictators are from South America and Africa.
1 Like
sad that it would need to come to this
Well more countries. Doesn’t mean that’s their intrinsic trait. 
Of course not. That would be absurd.
My point was it’s important not to be Eurocentric when drawing conclusions about how dictatorships occur. Historically most dictators haven’t taken power through democratic elections, in very recent history this has changed - probably because in recent history there have been more democracies of sorts.
3 Likes
Wonder how many have been influenced by Eurocentric influence and has this resulted in a rise in dictatorships? Also how much of European influence leaving some of this countries created an opportunity for this to flourish?
Colonialism undoubtedly had an enormous influence on the failure of democracy, but there was also the factor of people having no previous experience of democracy either during colonial rule or before it when there were monarchies or other non-European empires.
The support of dictatorships after colonial rule ended from Europe, and more so the USA, was very harmful as well.
There does come a time limit on blaming colonial rule, though. I’m not sure how long that will be. Countries in Asia seem to have gotten past it.
1 Like
Colonial rule in Asia iirc seems to be within the region/ similar cultures.
With SA and Africa it’s outside cultures coming in. Also, while you’re right on the whos to blame (which Im not trying to do) it seems like these countries are still dealing with outside undue influence. Congo for example.
India and Vietnam seem to be doing alright. The Philippines not so much. Malaysia’s not so bad. Singapore’s a mixed bag depending upon one’s perspective being democracy or economy.
I have no idea whether they blame any problems they have now on colonial rule, but I don’t see it coming up very frequently as an excuse.
Most of the outside influence in Africa is now from China. The USA are still fiddling about in South America, of course.
1 Like
Seems like that because imo they have investments in the countries not upsurping the politics.
Seems like when the politics is interfered with then the trouble begins. Africa is rich for resources but it doesn’t reflect that in it’s population. Seems like outside influences use destabilizing these country’s political bodies to their advantage when it comes to accessing the resources.
1 Like
This raises the question of why the politics of many African countries are so easily influenced by outside cultures when this doesn’t happen in India or Vietnam. They are both standing up against China, for example.
I heard someone said that the Eurocentric world community views Africa as less than human so their FDI is pitiful while every efforts are made to destabilize their politics. Essentially they are viewed as savages who is in the way of their resources.
I’m going to assume that India and Vietnam are being given support from US and other countries in the UN and Africa gets little or like in Congo, outside influences are manipulating forces within to create the havok they need to cover their thieving.
That would be a community of a few hundred million. It’s unlikely that they all view Africans as less than human.
The EU gives almost half of FDI on the planet, three times that of the USA as an example.
In 2017 US foreign aid to Vietnam was around $130million. Not sure what it was for India. I’m pretty sure India is now a net donor.
1 Like
A lot of these political interference are really proxy wars between the US and Russia. The US mess with a country’s politics because he may happen to have alliance with Russia’s allies. European countries are powerless to change that because the US dictates their military policies.
Well it seems to me that India is getting investments in the tech sector which is helping them make a big leap forward.
Africa is going to need intense and focused investment in a short period of time.
Foreign aid in general is a bit of a bugbear of mine. I think it causes more harm than good - but I’m in a bit of a minority in this regard. I would be very surprised if the $500 million or so the USA chucks at the Congo every year benefits more than a few percent of the people there. In fact, most foreign aid is primarily to facilitate political interference. They’d be better off without it in the long run.
The Indian tech sector will be attracting private investment, because an ROI will be expected.
1 Like
It matters not what the citizens of America or EU thinks. What matters is what the 1% and leaders think. There will be no investment of any kind into Africa because those people see Africans as sub human. Even the Nazi regime was bankrolled by major industrialists of the day (and yes that includes Henry Ford). You’re dealing with highly Eurocentric people who only wants the resource of Africa and do not think they deserve any rewards from it.
Ironically it seems China has been doing far more FDI in Africa than western countries.
Bill Gates is chucking loads of his money at Africa. He’s the top of the 1% - is he donating money to Africa because he thinks Africans are sub-human?
Agree 
1 Like