What should be done for Africa - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14319889
Lets face it Africa is not getting any better regardless of the advancements it has made so far, but what can we do, I have an idea of how Africa should get better. It's best that Africa is united under one government then remain separate states. We should start by having one African country as the vanguard leader that is modernize and lack of corruption, a country that other African countries look up to and try to be as an example of a successful African country, whose ideology and government is strict and discipline, whose economy is state capitalist/ or corporatism and politically right wing socialist . But most of all a resister to European corporations and government from taking our resources and defender of the African peoples and culture. I say they should develop a Japanese style fascism or copy something from the Baath party. But who to be that one African nation to have a stable well discipline government committed to modernization and non corrupted. They're all corrupted and unstable, and they're, through a bit modernize, poor and the people malnourished. Some how we must choose an African country then we must convince the populous that their regime is a failed one that they should revolt to create a new system of government one based on merit. I choose Ethiopia, because they had the most history. Africans look up to Ethiopia as an independent African country that resisted colonization and tried to modernize. Now it's another false socialist failed state. They must revolt their corrupt government and restore the imperial monarchy. The government will be a meritocracy combine with a constitutional monarchy where the Emperor symbolize and unified all the people of Ethiopia and then all of Africa. But how to unite all of Africa under their rule, they should become Imperialist, to the African ears that is a bad word but, here me out. Europe was starting to control both Africa and Asia, They may have succeed in controlling it all if not for Japan and Ethiopia standing in the Way. Japan already modernized and resisted colonization from the Russians learn to save Asia and to drive out the Europeans from Asia and to not be part of their colonization was to become like them. To save Asia from their influence and rule they had to liberate and govern them. Better a fellow Asian to rule them than a white foreign one. Asia for the Asians that's the motto. What went wrong was they instead of become a savior trying to help their Asians' brothers into liberating themselves and creating a pan-Asian paradise, they believe them selves to be superior to them and wanted to enslave them they're no better then the white imperialist. We Africans wont make that same mistake. The Ethiopians with their modernize army will finally liberate Africa from the corrupt governments, warlords, poverty, hunger, sickness, illiteracy, religious fundamentalist who use the religion as tool to oppress others. The Ethiopians will save them all and under their leadership they will modernize Africa and spread their African religion to all Africans, a united Africa under Imperial Ethiopian rule. I will tried to explain how their government should work on the next post later.
#14319891
Ethiopian monarchist wrote:It's best that Africa is united under one government then remain separate states.


That is, without a doubt, one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. Every single African state has internal conflicts between various ethnic/tribal/religious groups, many of which have a history of attempting to co-opt governmental apparatuses and use them as bludgeons against their enemies, and you want to lump together all these groups within a single vast state structure? The fallout from that would make everything that's happened in the Congo since Leopold look downright preferable by comparison.

Ethiopian monarchist wrote: We should start by having one African country as the vanguard leader that is modernize and lack of corruption


Turning Africa into a huge mega-state would vastly increase the opportunities for corruption, not decrease them.

I won't bother going through the rest of your post.
#14319929
I must say I love the spirit and idea, but I also disagree with this premise of any unitary or one-state solution to a diverse continent, because it would simply end up as a lot of wasted time and energy devoted to a project that would ultimately break down from internal squabbling not too long following its establishment anyway. Beyond the African states being too diverse, there is no one hegemon on the continent capable of efficiently organizing and overseeing such an undertaking and no one continental leader capable (or worthy) of uniting the African people at this time. Not to say such a prospect is completely impossible in the future, but with all the differences, would it even be worth it?

I think the best course is for some of the more influential African players such as South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria to work to first ruthlessly root out internal and regional corruption by some of the more outlandish personalist and kleptocratic states, then take advantage of Chinese, U.S., and European investment so as to better develop their own societies while preventing all sides from simply carving up Africa into an economic pie again (if the native political class can be resourceful and manage this). Then they should push for regional/continental alliances through the framework of the African Union which will take a unitary approach toward security directed against both stateless militant organizations (Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, the Lord's Resistance Army, M23, etc.) and the neo-colonial economic and military predation of foreign, non-African powers. It would be imperative for the future of such a theoretically more comprehensive union that this shift in policies is effected without serious attacks on the domestic independence of affairs of its participating states. Otherwise that internal factionalism which is the obvious weakness would just kill it outright.

Corruption is also one of the biggest liabilities. Consider the recent revelations of Ugandan peacekeepers in Somalia selling contraband fuel, weapons, and other materials to militants and warlords. Consider the Nigerian and West African drug trade with its ability to compromise the dutiful behavior of those manning all the border crossings. Consider women in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and other areas raped by UN personnel who have largely been in fact found out to be fellow Africans.

Ideally with such manpower and an influx of foreign (likely PRC) equipment, an African task force could be established and sent into lawless states where the central government has either all but collapsed or lost power to protect and police vast swaths of its own territory to the detriment of itself and regional security - States like Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and even Nigeria. Had this existed with any tangible effectiveness prior to AQIM's onslaught in Mali, African intervention there could have deterred the prospect of French involvement. Doing this would allow leading African states to set the terms on which such conflicts are resolved and shape the political landscape of the continent to their favor rather than that of France, the United States, or any other outside power. It's not an impervious safeguard against foreign intervention, but a more rapid response which could quickly alter the balance of power and facts on the ground in various locales would genuinely be a positive thing for those supportive of the initiative of pan-Africanism and all of Africa's denizens who wish to be a bit more, even a century down the line, than the world's punching bag and resource colony.

I also believe the North African states must be considered separately and each evaluated based on whether the direction of their policy pulls them more toward the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa. In most cases it is the former. Libya was a notable exception, but the new chaotic regime will pull the country toward the Gulf states and the West. That affair was a setback for African unity and a humiliation for all Africans.

It was encouraging to see the latest delegates at the AU meeting in Addis Ababa condemn the ICC's involvement in African affairs and call for the dropping of cases against Ruto and Omar al-Bashir (the latter of whom I am no fan of). Now they should back their words with action.

The whole African Union in its present incarnation owes everything to Libyan big ideas, big effort, and huge funding; Chinese investment, and a pretty engaged approach from Pretoria. Some simply aren't pulling their weight and that has to be called out and corrected if the people living there ever wish to move this from an exercise in fantasy and going through the motions to something formidable.
#14319985
Unfortunately, the parts of Africa most likeliest to "do well" are those which have the resources the rest of the World covets. Outside exploiters will do whatever it takes to get access to those resources including bringing "enforced stability" to the areas. Anywhere else is going to be left to the native populations to "figure out".
#14320125
Ethiopian monarchist wrote: We should start by having one African country as the vanguard leader that is modernize and lack of corruption


Turning Africa into a huge mega-state would vastly increase the opportunities for corruption, not decrease them.

I won't bother going through the rest of your post.[/quote]
Look if you don't read the post just because you disagree with it then that find by me but don't announce the fact you not going to read the rest of my post. Look like I said it's just an IDEA, I don't have time to think it all through so of course it's going to have some faults, but like I said it was an Idea and considering whats happen in Africa now, My Idea is better than what they doing now, sick of Africa being a thrid world country, that we have to rely on the European and American charity because we too busy fighting pointless battles and genocide with our OWN kind, while the European and American and imperialist CHINA is taking our resources for their own benefit. Not to mention we have one the highest HIV count in THE WORLD, high illiteracy, The fact that some Africans are still living in tribal villages, eating their own kind, putting untold harm their bodies, while warlords are as we speak enlisted children, young innocent kids to fight and DIE in their army, if that's not enough kids are being trafficking and sold in to slavery. Africa is a shithole and it needs to change RIGHT NOW. My Idea may not better but at least Im trying help my own damn kind not to be the way it is. I don't see you coming up with any ideas or helping your own kind, so tell me what Idea do you have in mind to save Africa from itself, and dont you dare say more liberal bullshit democracy, if you don't have any idea how to save Africa, then Shut up and let the idealist try to help his own kind
#14320142
Nothing anyone else does for Africa will help the population in Africa. The population must understand what is going on within each of themselves and as a collective whole population.

there is little civility in civilization, but being civil doesn't require a social name sake to constantly rescue from other ideologies leading nowhere out of the moment. Know Eternity is eternally now and each person will realize they are all in this atmosphere together conceived one lifetime at a time. Sounds simplictic, but simple is never easy and complicated makes it easy to deny simplicity.

There is a natural order, but within orders of law comes chaos. Don't get lost in pretending character counts and genders are insignificant if they do not believe in humanity being a larger than life platitude. Understand the value of substance over symbolism and as a social consciousness Africa can become the new USA that is imploding because of staged maybes having no substance, just symbolic value.
#14320165
Far-Right Sage wrote:I must say I love the spirit and idea, but I also disagree with this premise of any unitary or one-state solution to a diverse continent, because it would simply end up as a lot of wasted time and energy devoted to a project that would ultimately break down from internal squabbling not too long following its establishment anyway. Beyond the African states being too diverse, there is no one hegemon on the continent capable of efficiently organizing and overseeing such an undertaking and no one continental leader capable (or worthy) of uniting the African people at this time. Not to say such a prospect is completely impossible in the future, but with all the differences, would it even be worth it?

I think the best course is for some of the more influential African players such as South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria to work to first ruthlessly root out internal and regional corruption by some of the more outlandish personalist and kleptocratic states, then take advantage of Chinese, U.S., and European investment so as to better develop their own societies while preventing all sides from simply carving up Africa into an economic pie again (if the native political class can be resourceful and manage this). Then they should push for regional/continental alliances through the framework of the African Union which will take a unitary approach toward security directed against both stateless militant organizations (Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, the Lord's Resistance Army, M23, etc.) and the neo-colonial economic and military predation of foreign, non-African powers. It would be imperative for the future of such a theoretically more comprehensive union that this shift in policies is effected without serious attacks on the domestic independence of affairs of its participating states. Otherwise that internal factionalism which is the obvious weakness would just kill it outright.

Corruption is also one of the biggest liabilities. Consider the recent revelations of Ugandan peacekeepers in Somalia selling contraband fuel, weapons, and other materials to militants and warlords. Consider the Nigerian and West African drug trade with its ability to compromise the dutiful behavior of those manning all the border crossings. Consider women in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and other areas raped by UN personnel who have largely been in fact found out to be fellow Africans.

Ideally with such manpower and an influx of foreign (likely PRC) equipment, an African task force could be established and sent into lawless states where the central government has either all but collapsed or lost power to protect and police vast swaths of its own territory to the detriment of itself and regional security - States like Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and even Nigeria. Had this existed with any tangible effectiveness prior to AQIM's onslaught in Mali, African intervention there could have deterred the prospect of French involvement. Doing this would allow leading African states to set the terms on which such conflicts are resolved and shape the political landscape of the continent to their favor rather than that of France, the United States, or any other outside power. It's not an impervious safeguard against foreign intervention, but a more rapid response which could quickly alter the balance of power and facts on the ground in various locales would genuinely be a positive thing for those supportive of the initiative of pan-Africanism and all of Africa's denizens who wish to be a bit more, even a century down the line, than the world's punching bag and resource colony.

I also believe the North African states must be considered separately and each evaluated based on whether the direction of their policy pulls them more toward the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa. In most cases it is the former. Libya was a notable exception, but the new chaotic regime will pull the country toward the Gulf states and the West. That affair was a setback for African unity and a humiliation for all Africans.

It was encouraging to see the latest delegates at the AU meeting in Addis Ababa condemn the ICC's involvement in African affairs and call for the dropping of cases against Ruto and Omar al-Bashir (the latter of whom I am no fan of). Now they should back their words with action.

The whole African Union in its present incarnation owes everything to Libyan big ideas, big effort, and huge funding; Chinese investment, and a pretty engaged approach from Pretoria. Some simply aren't pulling their weight and that has to be called out and corrected if the people living there ever wish to move this from an exercise in fantasy and going through the motions to something formidable.


thanks for replying, let me understand what you trying to say:
The least corruptible states should join a union to defend them selves and create a African peacekeepers corp to drive out warlords and lawlessness while destroying internal strafe and corruption of their own states. Doing this will gain them influence. Then they should do investment with the world powers. Am i right so far. Also did you get my message.
#14320220
Ethiopian monarchist wrote:Look if you don't read the post just because you disagree with it then that find by me but don't announce the fact you not going to read the rest of my post.


You misunderstand. I read all of it - I just didn't need to comment on the rest of it because its idealism and (at times) outright ludicrousness meant that it spoke for itself.

Ethiopian monarchist wrote:Idea is better than what they doing now, sick of Africa being a thrid world country, that we have to rely on the European and American charity because we too busy fighting pointless battles and genocide with our OWN kind


Do you really think that internal conflict would cease if all of Africa was united as a single country?

Ethiopian monarchist wrote: Africa is a shithole and it needs to change RIGHT NOW. My Idea may not better but at least Im trying help my own damn kind not to be the way it is.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ethiopian monarchist wrote:I don't see you coming up with any ideas or helping your own kind.




Ethiopian monarchist wrote:Tell me what Idea do you have in mind to save Africa from itself


There is no idea that can "save Africa from itself." Africa is a continent, and any ideas, such as the ones you propose, that presume to try and treat Africa as something other than a continent are doomed to failure.

Ethiopian monarchist wrote:If you don't have any idea how to save Africa, then Shut up and let the idealist try to help his own kind


I find the fact that you refer to yourself as an idealist quite telling. Also, re-read Rule Two.

FRS wrote:I must say I love the spirit and idea, but I also disagree with this premise of any unitary or one-state solution to a diverse continent, because it would simply end up as a lot of wasted time and energy devoted to a project that would ultimately break down from internal squabbling not too long following its establishment anyway. Beyond the African states being too diverse, there is no one hegemon on the continent capable of efficiently organizing and overseeing such an undertaking and no one continental leader capable (or worthy) of uniting the African people at this time. Not to say such a prospect is completely impossible in the future, but with all the differences, would it even be worth it?

I think the best course is for some of the more influential African players such as South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria to work to first ruthlessly root out internal and regional corruption by some of the more outlandish personalist and kleptocratic states, then take advantage of Chinese, U.S., and European investment so as to better develop their own societies while preventing all sides from simply carving up Africa into an economic pie again (if the native political class can be resourceful and manage this). Then they should push for regional/continental alliances through the framework of the African Union which will take a unitary approach toward security directed against both stateless militant organizations (Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, the Lord's Resistance Army, M23, etc.) and the neo-colonial economic and military predation of foreign, non-African powers. It would be imperative for the future of such a theoretically more comprehensive union that this shift in policies is effected without serious attacks on the domestic independence of affairs of its participating states. Otherwise that internal factionalism which is the obvious weakness would just kill it outright.

Corruption is also one of the biggest liabilities. Consider the recent revelations of Ugandan peacekeepers in Somalia selling contraband fuel, weapons, and other materials to militants and warlords. Consider the Nigerian and West African drug trade with its ability to compromise the dutiful behavior of those manning all the border crossings. Consider women in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and other areas raped by UN personnel who have largely been in fact found out to be fellow Africans.

Ideally with such manpower and an influx of foreign (likely PRC) equipment, an African task force could be established and sent into lawless states where the central government has either all but collapsed or lost power to protect and police vast swaths of its own territory to the detriment of itself and regional security - States like Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and even Nigeria. Had this existed with any tangible effectiveness prior to AQIM's onslaught in Mali, African intervention there could have deterred the prospect of French involvement. Doing this would allow leading African states to set the terms on which such conflicts are resolved and shape the political landscape of the continent to their favor rather than that of France, the United States, or any other outside power. It's not an impervious safeguard against foreign intervention, but a more rapid response which could quickly alter the balance of power and facts on the ground in various locales would genuinely be a positive thing for those supportive of the initiative of pan-Africanism and all of Africa's denizens who wish to be a bit more, even a century down the line, than the world's punching bag and resource colony.

I also believe the North African states must be considered separately and each evaluated based on whether the direction of their policy pulls them more toward the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa. In most cases it is the former. Libya was a notable exception, but the new chaotic regime will pull the country toward the Gulf states and the West. That affair was a setback for African unity and a humiliation for all Africans.

It was encouraging to see the latest delegates at the AU meeting in Addis Ababa condemn the ICC's involvement in African affairs and call for the dropping of cases against Ruto and Omar al-Bashir (the latter of whom I am no fan of). Now they should back their words with action.

The whole African Union in its present incarnation owes everything to Libyan big ideas, big effort, and huge funding; Chinese investment, and a pretty engaged approach from Pretoria. Some simply aren't pulling their weight and that has to be called out and corrected if the people living there ever wish to move this from an exercise in fantasy and going through the motions to something formidable.


I am pressed for time, so I will say for now that I agree in part with this, and will go through the ideas proposed here in more detail later.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]