While the Apartheid was absolutely not perfect, but liberal thinkers always try to downplay their achievements.
First heart transplantation, nuclear weapons, very good infrastructure, etc....all these despite crushing outside pressure and fighting a mostly low-burning, but nevertheless costly war.
The ANC already had more than 30 years to build upon the best foundations in black Africa. We can all see by now that they squandered it and they draw their legitimity from the former system. For a self-conscious population this would be outrageous after 31 years. Democracy is not for everyone (and I don't even believe in "democracy").
The secret to success for South African companies after the end of of apartheid was conversion to International Corporations - which was the class of companies excluded from the transition to majority black ownership. This is why, for instance, Naspers (which I sold a company to at one point) and Standard Bank are still enormously successful - they kept their previous management structure and weren't plundered by the new regime. Naspers is of course #1 largest South African firm these days, kind of by a long shot - and it's significantly where most of the white domestic talent went if they didn't flee the country. But you can look at the list of the South African International Corporations and it requires very little reading between the lines to figure out which ones are the old school firms who have stood the test of time.
You can't pick up and move a farm to London, nor in any practical sense a shop.
But it was (and is) a very legitimate response for South African MNCs to say "we'll relocate to Switzerland, or Delaware, or London" or whatever.
And crime, rather by definition, either doesn't care about the rules, can bribe the powers that be to get things done in a corrupt environment, or can go wherever the money is.
I think the morally correct thing to do in these situations is to have separate governments rather than segregation or apartheid. They can have separate immigration policies and self-determination for both groups.
A lot of people value sovereignty over absolute standard of living. (I would feel this way as well; I wouldn't want a higher IQ, lower crime ethnic group ruling over mine and having mine code as low status within my own birth country, even if I were richer in absolute terms because of it.)
Aid could be consent-based on both sides rather than using one government to settle disputes and redistribute resources. It just seems better all around, for every group involved, for social trust, and for international relations.
RW Johnson has a whole series of books on this. You can actually watch him change his opinion over time (from what I can tell from the blurbs, anyway).
Botswana and the other examples are also very low population countries for Africa. There are less then half the people in Botswana then Singapore.
Basically they have insanely high resource per capita ratios, kind of like the UAE. So long as you can avoid civil war (which the quasi dictatorship has accomplished) you can be a sort of middle income country digging stuff out of the ground and using it to pay foreigners to run your country for you.
Not scalable in any way though. A country with a larger population has to produce wealth by using one’s mind productively.
You can add to this that Botswana is a fairly monoethnic country (I think something like 80% of the people belong to the Tswana ethnicity). It's really rare in African countries and it's making it much easier as you not have to deal with twelve different groups.
Most of the African countries have no reason to look what they look like and it resembles me on how the Russians are always blamed on making stupid borders in the former USSR so they can play the different nations against eachother.
This is why the "international order" says that there can be no border changes (except when they want it or couldn't be bothered, like with the secession of South Sudan).
For example even if we say that Kosovo doesn't belong to the Serbians, there is no reason to not give them back the northern parts where they are in majority, except for keeping tensions high.
I also think, this is the reason Modi is so much disliked, as he tries to put the Indians on the path of ethnogenesis/national genesis based on the Hindu faith and a centralised India would become it's own sphere of influence, limiting the ability of others (the "international order) to steer them in their own group.
I don't think apartheid was good. It may have been less bad than black majority rule. Especially if SA goes in the direction of Zimbabwe. The DA being in the coalition right now is a good sign but the overall picture is bleak and as soon as you have an ANC coalition with MK/EFF you're in a lot of trouble. Apartheid was pretty bad. South Africa ideally would have had some third option that wasn't apartheid and wasn't just majority rule. Partition or a federal system would have been good. If the Afrikaaners created a Volkstaat in the Western Cape and just seceded rather than oppressing the black majority and using them for cheap labor, that would have been better. They should have built Orania in 1950.
The Tsar was good because the USSR was much worse. Every political policy ought to be judged relative to the realistic alternatives, not your preferred idealized alternative.
While the Apartheid was absolutely not perfect, but liberal thinkers always try to downplay their achievements.
First heart transplantation, nuclear weapons, very good infrastructure, etc....all these despite crushing outside pressure and fighting a mostly low-burning, but nevertheless costly war.
The ANC already had more than 30 years to build upon the best foundations in black Africa. We can all see by now that they squandered it and they draw their legitimity from the former system. For a self-conscious population this would be outrageous after 31 years. Democracy is not for everyone (and I don't even believe in "democracy").
It is a travesty what was done to South Africa and Rhodesia.
The secret to success for South African companies after the end of of apartheid was conversion to International Corporations - which was the class of companies excluded from the transition to majority black ownership. This is why, for instance, Naspers (which I sold a company to at one point) and Standard Bank are still enormously successful - they kept their previous management structure and weren't plundered by the new regime. Naspers is of course #1 largest South African firm these days, kind of by a long shot - and it's significantly where most of the white domestic talent went if they didn't flee the country. But you can look at the list of the South African International Corporations and it requires very little reading between the lines to figure out which ones are the old school firms who have stood the test of time.
Anarcho-tyranny
The farmer and shopkeeper suffer while the multinational corporation and the violent criminal do okay.
As ever, because of the mobility of capital.
You can't pick up and move a farm to London, nor in any practical sense a shop.
But it was (and is) a very legitimate response for South African MNCs to say "we'll relocate to Switzerland, or Delaware, or London" or whatever.
And crime, rather by definition, either doesn't care about the rules, can bribe the powers that be to get things done in a corrupt environment, or can go wherever the money is.
I think the morally correct thing to do in these situations is to have separate governments rather than segregation or apartheid. They can have separate immigration policies and self-determination for both groups.
A lot of people value sovereignty over absolute standard of living. (I would feel this way as well; I wouldn't want a higher IQ, lower crime ethnic group ruling over mine and having mine code as low status within my own birth country, even if I were richer in absolute terms because of it.)
Aid could be consent-based on both sides rather than using one government to settle disputes and redistribute resources. It just seems better all around, for every group involved, for social trust, and for international relations.
RW Johnson has a whole series of books on this. You can actually watch him change his opinion over time (from what I can tell from the blurbs, anyway).
Botswana and the other examples are also very low population countries for Africa. There are less then half the people in Botswana then Singapore.
Basically they have insanely high resource per capita ratios, kind of like the UAE. So long as you can avoid civil war (which the quasi dictatorship has accomplished) you can be a sort of middle income country digging stuff out of the ground and using it to pay foreigners to run your country for you.
Not scalable in any way though. A country with a larger population has to produce wealth by using one’s mind productively.
You can add to this that Botswana is a fairly monoethnic country (I think something like 80% of the people belong to the Tswana ethnicity). It's really rare in African countries and it's making it much easier as you not have to deal with twelve different groups.
Most of the African countries have no reason to look what they look like and it resembles me on how the Russians are always blamed on making stupid borders in the former USSR so they can play the different nations against eachother.
This is why the "international order" says that there can be no border changes (except when they want it or couldn't be bothered, like with the secession of South Sudan).
For example even if we say that Kosovo doesn't belong to the Serbians, there is no reason to not give them back the northern parts where they are in majority, except for keeping tensions high.
I also think, this is the reason Modi is so much disliked, as he tries to put the Indians on the path of ethnogenesis/national genesis based on the Hindu faith and a centralised India would become it's own sphere of influence, limiting the ability of others (the "international order) to steer them in their own group.
I don't think apartheid was good. It may have been less bad than black majority rule. Especially if SA goes in the direction of Zimbabwe. The DA being in the coalition right now is a good sign but the overall picture is bleak and as soon as you have an ANC coalition with MK/EFF you're in a lot of trouble. Apartheid was pretty bad. South Africa ideally would have had some third option that wasn't apartheid and wasn't just majority rule. Partition or a federal system would have been good. If the Afrikaaners created a Volkstaat in the Western Cape and just seceded rather than oppressing the black majority and using them for cheap labor, that would have been better. They should have built Orania in 1950.
It was good relative to the alternative
The system of the last 31 years was not the only alternative. The Tsar wasn’t good because the USSR was worse.
The Tsar was good because the USSR was much worse. Every political policy ought to be judged relative to the realistic alternatives, not your preferred idealized alternative.
Edit needed: “The 1980s are when the US *stated* putting serious economic sanctions on South Africa.”