Should African borders be rebooted?

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,469
Benin City, Nigeria
#22
It's cliche because it's common sense. Everyone here knows that redrawing the borders will create a blood bath unless some outside force with military authority is doing it. It will solve nothing as well if done as the ethnic landscape before the colonial days were different. They should focus on unifying the continent through trades and common values. What's done is done. They should move on. I'm not for example against a unified Bantu federation if such an entity is greater than the individual nations that make it. But it's ridiculous to break a nation such as Nigeria into petty tribes based on ethnicity.

Yes, the Western Europeans abolished their borders to some degree to allow free movements of workers and trade. The border between France and Germany is not that different from say California and Oregon.
I think you're not really up to date with what's going on. For example the African Continental Free Trade Area was already signed into existence this year. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about though.

I'll ask a different question then: if you had a choice between (a) a country being divided into new units and all the information you had showed that some of those units would actually be successful, or (b) a choice to leave it intact but with a very high chance of overall failure, which option would you choose and why?

Also, regarding "what's done is done", what if some of what was done was pointless and wrongheaded? It should just be accepted because. . .?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,310
Portugal
#23
I do think the borders need to be redrawn, and I think the biggest benefit to redrawing the borders would be that ethnic conflicts would decrease and the focus on ethnic politics within countries would also decrease, so that the governments of various countries could move closer to a meritocratic government. The other major benefit would be that in those cases where there are some groups that are currently more economically productive and who are really trying to modernize their countries (groups that are effectively subsidizing the development of the areas of other, less productive or less modernizing groups), these groups would be free to actually develop at the pace they want instead of being held back by their obligations to some other less productive groups in their countries. Additionally, the less productive groups would be incentivized to "pick up the pace" and put vastly more effort into becoming more productive and into developing than they currently are. Although that would be a significant challenge at first, it would be better in the long run so that the efforts of those more productive groups are not just wasted.
I have already heard a similar discourse among the separatist Catalans, and a among some countries in the EU. Jeroen Dijsselbloem even made a comment on this lines. Seems a kind of discourse, “we are better, we shouldn’t be paying your vices.” Either real or stereotyped.

As many as it takes. Making a list would take a while, but I expect it to probably be over 30.
I was thinking to ask a question similar to Arminius… but regarding Nigeria, what would be the possibilities?

Europeans abolished their borders?
In the EU, yes, and even to some degree in all the Schengen Area.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,469
Benin City, Nigeria
#24
I have already heard a similar discourse among the separatist Catalans, and a among some countries in the EU. Jeroen Dijsselbloem even made a comment on this lines. Seems a kind of discourse, “we are better, we shouldn’t be paying your vices.” Either real or stereotyped.
I don't know what the situation is with the Catalans, but there are some stark differences between some regions in certain African countries such as Cote d'Ivoire or Nigeria in terms of things like school enrollment, economic activity, etc. This is a result of certain historical factors (for example, the educational disparity that exists between regions in Nigeria today took root at least a century ago, if not earlier; this source provides an overview of how and why it came about).

It is certainly not just a matter of perception. Also, while there do exist some people ignorantly shouting (or even writing books explicitly claiming) "we are better" for this or that reason (without even knowing the historical context behind some of the disparities that they are highlighting) in certain African countries, including Nigeria, that does not really change the point that such groups are still being held back in some ways from realizing their potential and deciding their own affairs without interference.

I was thinking to ask a question similar to Arminius… but regarding Nigeria, what would be the possibilities?
The Northwest and North-central could form one country. If the Northeast wants it could join that country, or form its own country, and this newly formed country, probably called Borno or Bornu, could also be given some land in Chad and Niger as well - the parts where the Kanuri speakers are.

The Central parts of Nigeria could form their own federation from the Tiv, Jukun, Igala, and other groups. If a few groups want their own republic (for example a Tiv Republic) those could be formed as well.

The Southeastern part of the country would be formed into an Igbo Republic.

The Coastal Eastern groups could get their own country - or two different ones if needed.

The Western part of the country in the south would be formed into a Yoruba Republic.

The Midwestern part of the country, in the south, could be formed into two states.

Overall, probably seven or nine states.
 
Apr 2017
614
Lemuria
#25
I think you're not really up to date with what's going on. For example the African Continental Free Trade Area was already signed into existence this year. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about though.

I'll ask a different question then: if you had a choice between (a) a country being divided into new units and all the information you had showed that some of those units would actually be successful, or (b) a choice to leave it intact but with a very high chance of overall failure, which option would you choose and why?

Also, regarding "what's done is done", what if some of what was done was pointless and wrongheaded? It should just be accepted because. . .?
Option b. I'll take something greater but dysfunctional over small successful units as in the long run those units won't amount to anything economically significant and won't be capable of any project of significance. Hong Kong, Macau or taiwan won't be able to accomplish the projects China is capable by themselves. Those states will only exist in state of happiness and wealth but won't ever evolve into something greater as they will always lack the net resource for the grand projects that can advance humanity.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,469
Benin City, Nigeria
#27
Option b. I'll take something greater but dysfunctional over small successful units as in the long run those units won't amount to anything economically significant and won't be capable of any project of significance. Hong Kong, Macau or taiwan won't be able to accomplish the projects China is capable by themselves. Those states will only exist in state of happiness and wealth but won't ever evolve into something greater as they will always lack the net resource for the grand projects that can advance humanity.
So this "grand projects that can advance humanity" idea, how exactly would a state that is a failure carry that out?

Maybe you're too caught up in an idealistic vision here.
 
Apr 2017
614
Lemuria
#28
So this "grand projects that can advance humanity" idea, how exactly would a state that is a failure carry that out?

Maybe you're too caught up in an idealistic vision here.
There are various degrees of failure. One might say Pakistan is a quasi fail state but it can pool enough human resource and finance to create a nuclear weapon. Something a small rich nation such as Qatar can't do. India poor as it is has a well developed space program and military. On the surface successful smaller units seem reasonable but this line of reasoning will only lead to the extinction of a nation in the long run. It's mathematical.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,469
Benin City, Nigeria
#29
In all of these examples you have referenced or will reference, whether it is China or India or wherever else, there is going to be a degree of cultural homogeneity far greater than what exists in the African countries that you don't want to see broken up.

A few mostly culturally homogeneous African countries that are fairly large in terms of population could be created if some African countries were broken up and "rearranged" along cultural lines anyway, so I don't see how this is really a valid objection.
 
Apr 2017
614
Lemuria
#30
In all of these examples you have referenced or will reference, whether it is China or India or wherever else, there is going to be a degree of cultural homogeneity far greater than what exists in the African countries that you don't want to see broken up.

A few mostly culturally homogeneous African countries that are fairly large in terms of population could be created if some African countries were broken up and "rearranged" along cultural lines anyway, so I don't see how this is really a valid objection.
China, yes (to a degree) but not India. India is extremely diverse. It's a better model for Africa.
 

Similar History Discussions