Swaziland: the revolution to come

[JMA]

In places like Africa, alas, the noble intent may go awry, especially in "nations" composed of multiple populaces whose deepest and most heartfelt desire is to stomp the living $#!t out of the neighboring populace and take all the marbles for themselves (actually not exactly a situation unique to Africa). That doesn't mean self-determination is not worth pursuing, but the idea that self-determination will bring peace and stability is often illusory.

There was no noble intent towards Africa.

The colonies were abandoned and then we saw repeats of "one man. one vote, once" Only South Africa remains as a beacon on the continent but is teetering on the brink as the new inner circle have their noses firmly in the trough.

The most shattering thing about Africa has been the early vociferous complaints about colonial boundaries only to find the OAU and now the equally useless AU demanding that no national boundaries be changed. You go figure.

[M-A Lagrange]

Without a functioning economy delivery of social services depends on foreign assistance, neither sustainable nor healthy. Of course a functioning economy requires investment, which won't happen without some level of political stability, and around we go in circles. Call it the African shuffle; very difficult to find a practical intervention point.

Dayuhan
Depends on what you call a functioning economy.
DRC never stopped to be an investing place and was much more profitable for investor when was at war.
In Liberia, the direct effect of the raw material crises in the 70 led to the total disruption of a functioning economy that led to a first revolution and the arrival of Samuel Doe in power. The fact that he did not even try to restore the social services favorise the military adventure of Charles Taylor who entered in the country without local insurgent network but 200 mercenaries (mainly Liberian).
In Zimbabwe, as the economy was completely dysfunctional, social services were still functioning and the country was stable despite having a war affected economy.

Economy is not the solution to initiate stability and create conditions for investment. Stability is. Only social services equally shared can provide such stability. Once you have fund the stability, then you are in much better position to bargain your investments in the country… But may be it is too social/populace/people oriented?

JMA:
As you pointed it, the problem is one man one vote, ONCE.
While it should be one man, one vote: several times.

[Dayuhan]

There was no noble intent towards Africa.

Of course not. I was responding to Bob's World's hypothetical "the best you can do" construct, not to actual conditions.

Dayuhan
Only social services equally shared can provide such stability. Once you have fund the stability, then you are in much better position to bargain your investments in the country…

How do you finance social services without somebody somewhere generating a taxable surplus... e.g. without a functioning economy?

[JMA]

How do you finance social services without somebody somewhere generating a taxable surplus... e.g. without a functioning economy?

Well if it were not for the income derived through the Southern African Customs Union Swaziland would be a real basket case. SACU link

Money for nothing.

[JMA]

[B]JMA:
As you pointed it, the problem is one man one vote, ONCE.
While it should be one man, one vote: several times.

Europe was just off loading the colonies and didn't care, in fact dealing with one man who had unlimited power suited them fine. And after the next coup they just opened a Swiss bank account for the new boss and then it was business as usual.

[M-A Lagrange]

Dayuhan:
How do you finance social services without somebody somewhere generating a taxable surplus... e.g. without a functioning economy?

I believe that we are in a somehow complex and unsolvable egg and chicken question: who came first, the egg or the chicken?

What I see is that Swaziland is in miniature what so many African countries could be: a heaven on earth. And that’s their curse.

Being naturally cynical, I would say that the aim nowadays is to build sustainable dictatorship (concept developed with/by T. Vircoulon from ICG on Zimbabwe case).
The sustainable dictatorship is the response to nonworking sustainable development:
- Strong dictatorial regime with regular popular consultation
- Capitalistic economy controlled by the first circle of power based on a communist like practice of economical control by the state but for personal enrichment.
- Regime legitimacy propaganda based on an external enemy: the classic paranoid state ideology
- A shift from population control from security to economy: use economical policies and terror to break middle class and opposition economical roots. Once the bourgeoisie and the upper middle class has understood that privileges come with political silence…
- Integration in the “party” or circle of power of any opposition party that manages to gain sufficient popular support to be a threat for the system. This to better isolate and corrupt it.

The variations of the model go from complete application in Zimbabwe to apparently lighter model as Uganda or Rwanda.
The main external back up of those countries was China but, at least in Africa, US and European countries have started to rethink their position on the need of democracy and good governance to have a stable environment for investments.

The thing in Africa is that you do not need a healthy economy for profitable investments. You just need a stable power and regime. Something that sustainable dictatorship does provide and is "easy to implement on that continent".
The case of Rwanda and Uganda is stunning: those countries have nothing to offer and they have been able to “develop” efficient social services. Not because of a healthy economy but through savaging DRC resources and international aid. They do not even had/have peace in the entire country. LRA use to burn North Uganda for decades. Or the Kamajor… The same for Rwanda: the FDLR “threat” which participates more to the propaganda of the external enemy than represent actually a real threat.
My point is that those models are:
1) Biased because the economical development was not internally generated but through an mercantile period of razzia of DRC resources. So there is no need of a healthy economy but a need of a lucrative market.
2) Rwanda and Uganda are/were dependant for more than 50% of their budgets on foreign aid… But they are stable. Politically non transparent and free but stable.

The question layes in how do you actually reach the take off point. You need to fund it. Internally or externally. Once your economy has taken off, then you can launch the rest and have tax surplus...

So, yes, I do believe that social services comes first to stabilise. But we may disagree on that and your points are as relevant as mine. The question is to choose between the chicken and the egg…