> I think you’ll find that South Africa’s enormous mineral wealth did much of that
I never thought this argument rang true. Many countries with great mineral wealth are quite poor and dysfunctional, and many with little such resources are wealthy and successful anyways.
I don't agree with the apartheid racial theories, but it does seem plausible that the white side inherited and followed a successful and long-established culture of good governance (well, at least good for themselves...). Meanwhile, the transitions out was abrupt enough that the culture of the government was removed and replaced with a different culture that was less experienced with government.
I suppose in an ideal world, a gradual transition which gave plenty of time for the majority blacks to absorb the same government culture would work better. I know that isn't so easy to do in an environment where there has been such strong discrimination and racism for decades, though. And there's quite a bit of truth to the argument that it's easy for the side that's on top to want their transition out of always being on top to be slower.
I never thought this argument rang true. Many countries with great mineral wealth are quite poor and dysfunctional, and many with little such resources are wealthy and successful anyways
Agreed. I was replying to a point about South Africa being richer than its “black governed” neighbours. In fact, all shared a similar colonial history and achieved independence within a similar time period, and they were, in fact, all white ruled till relatively recently. The difference between them was the vast mineral wealth in South Africa. Ignoring this would be the same as comparing, say, Yemen and Qatar, wondering why the one is poor and the other is extremely wealthy, and deciding that Qatar’s success comes down to it being a Sheikhdom.
The transition to democracy probably did happen more suddenly than planned, because the assasination of Chris Hani by a right-wing extremist in 1993 brought South Africa to the brink of civil war, and the apartheid government pretty much lost control at that point.
And the problem with the civil service was even more pernicious than inexperience-there were multiple Bantustans that were deeply corrupt, and their civil services had to be integrated into the newly created provinces bringing the rot with them. Coupled with the ultimately self-destructive apartheid Bantu Education system, it’s no wonder that the government struggled to cope.
I never thought this argument rang true. Many countries with great mineral wealth are quite poor and dysfunctional, and many with little such resources are wealthy and successful anyways.
I don't agree with the apartheid racial theories, but it does seem plausible that the white side inherited and followed a successful and long-established culture of good governance (well, at least good for themselves...). Meanwhile, the transitions out was abrupt enough that the culture of the government was removed and replaced with a different culture that was less experienced with government.
I suppose in an ideal world, a gradual transition which gave plenty of time for the majority blacks to absorb the same government culture would work better. I know that isn't so easy to do in an environment where there has been such strong discrimination and racism for decades, though. And there's quite a bit of truth to the argument that it's easy for the side that's on top to want their transition out of always being on top to be slower.