Compare Botswana to Zimbabwe and explain the difference, because Botswana is ruled by blacks and has been for decades, nay, generations.
Even with one of the highest AIDS rates in the world, and a very high unemployment rate, Botswana had a $9,000 per capita GDP in 2004.
Those two are a good contrast. IMO, there are three things that make Botswana what it is. 1) A government which since independence from Britain in the mid 1960's has not had the Presidents hand in the till, 2) Plenty of mineral wealth and 3) a small population. Their biggest downside is the place is largely a desert. That 9K/person GDP does not unfortunately reflect the productivity of the average citizen, BTW.
Zimbabwe too has good mineral wealth, much more water, but a much larger population to normalize that over. The biggest problem being Mugabe of course.
The problem longer term for Botswana is what will they do when the diamonds are exhausted? Both Botswana & Zimbabwe could be world class in terms of tourism, especially from Europe. Zimbabwe also has good ag potential. But oddly enough governmental stability and law & order are kind of basic for a functional society.
The real disaster in Africa is Congo, a large country, excellent mineral wealth, excellent water, a relatively low population, tourism potential which must surely be the best in Africa, and chronic violence to ruin it all. |
