Laelia wrote:
Zaryi wrote:
I totally agree in this case. The new country won't have the infrastructure, the economy, the education, etc to support any sort of viable population or government. Southern Sudan, or however they wish to be called, will end up being a failed state of extreme poverty and destitution. The government will be rampantly corrupt, the population with any means will immigrate to Ethiopia or Kenya or Uganda, and the rest will starve until the IMF/WB/UN/ETC steps in.
This seems a little extreme. Southern Sudan has a lot of natural resources, and if the right people come to power it could do quite well. It may end up failing, but after successfully running a fair referendum with 99% turnout I think they deserve a bit of credit. There's some interesting information here:
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/01/06/dispelling_myths_about_the_sudan_referendum.htmlIt's not a matter of resources. History shows that natural resources have basically no relevance to the long-term success of a nation. The single greatest factor in a nation's survival and success is strong centralized authority.
Successful political systems are always the result of upheaval and revolution and a lot of people getting killed. Weak leaders and non-viable political systems fail, and strong states emerge. If all that ever happens is just subdividing every polity that doesn't work out, you wind up with something like the Holy Roman Empire or Eastern Europe or the Balkans - a bunch of feeble states with no strong centralized authority. That is the situation in Africa, and it will continue to be, until the historical process is allowed to work as it should.