My definition of a "failed state" is a country that doesn't meet the minimum standards for human rights or the most basic needs of the population. While colonialism certainly has to be a factor, there's a lot more to it than that. Look at the number of states that were once colonies and are thriving today like the US, India and Canada to name but a few.
The common denominator between all of the failed states is a grossly unbalanced distribution of wealth. People capable of providing for themselves become educated and demand more honest and represenative governments. In Sub Saharan Africa, it takes virtually 100 percent of the population's energy just to be alive tomorrow. They have neither the resources nor the energy to do what would be necessary to rid their country of the political leaches that have sapped every ounce of wealth out of their countries.
In my mind the difference between the states that overcame colonialism and those that didn't is that they were united in the cause to overcome the colonialists, they were willing to fight and they had the ability to sustain themselves during that process. Those are missing factors in all of the failed states.
Thanks I really appreciate your input, I agree with your statement about colonialism and feel They may have had a roll in that, but colonialism ended over two generations ago. Most of the nations in those areas have been independent of any of the European nations for over 40 years. How long do we keep blaming outsiders for the problems created by the people of those nations? is one of the question I believe we have to ask.
Simply put, if the Sub-Saharan Africans had viable economies, their problems would be minimal within a few decades because they would deal with it the same as the other countries that experienced the same problems. It is the greedy few who are willing to starve their own people while giving diamonds to famous models like Naomi Campbell that are 95 percent of the problems.
I agree very nice perspective on things.
