Why some nations fail and others succeed
- Thread starter Factz
- Start date
The alchemist
VIP
Luck favors the prepared. Good governments didn't naturally develop, it a strenuous process.
It's political culture, general intelligence of population and geography.
If you're neighbours are authoritarian or extractive then it's likely your country will be the same.
Fortunately we live in a global world now and these theories from the past no longer apply.
In a few decades a global political mono culture will be the norm and it'll all solely depend on intelligence of the population.
If you're neighbours are authoritarian or extractive then it's likely your country will be the same.
Fortunately we live in a global world now and these theories from the past no longer apply.
In a few decades a global political mono culture will be the norm and it'll all solely depend on intelligence of the population.
Apollo
VIP
That book behind him had to match the color of his toga huh? I wish he held the book upside down, it would have been hilarioius
The alchemist
VIP
Environmental role can mean poor living condition, lack of educational access, poor health care and lack of nutrients for the population which could result in their low intelligence.
Dude look into twin studies. Environmental factor of IQ is proven to be less than the genetic factor.
I disagree. Look at Ireland 70 years ago. Their average IQ was 70 and after their living condition improved and introduced a bit of formal education. They became the 15th smartest country in the world.
Environmental factor plays a crucial role for the population's intelligence.
As for the twin studies which I have looked on long ago has many errors. I mean over the years, the critics have pointed too many potentially invalidating problems and biases found in these studies.
http://jayjoseph.net/yahoo_site_adm..._Twin_Studies_Chapter_Summaries.329211842.pdf
VixR
Veritas
Excerpt from Why Nations Fail regarding Somalia:
"In Somalia, if one clan created a centralized state capable of imposing order on the country, this could lead to economic benefits and make this clan richer. What stop this? The main barrier to political centralization is again a form of fear from change: any clan, group or politician attempting to centralize power in the state will also be centralizing power in their own hands, and this is likely to meet the ire of other clans, groups, and individuals, who would be the political losers of this process. Lack of political centralization means not only lack of law and order in much of a territory but also there being many actors with sufficient powers to block, or disrupt things, and the fear of their opposition and violent reaction will often deter many- would be centralizers. Political centralization is likely only when one group of people is sufficiently more powerful than others to build a state. In Somalia, power is evenly balanced, and no one clan impose its will on any other. Therefore, the lack of political centralization persists (p.87)."
"In Somalia, if one clan created a centralized state capable of imposing order on the country, this could lead to economic benefits and make this clan richer. What stop this? The main barrier to political centralization is again a form of fear from change: any clan, group or politician attempting to centralize power in the state will also be centralizing power in their own hands, and this is likely to meet the ire of other clans, groups, and individuals, who would be the political losers of this process. Lack of political centralization means not only lack of law and order in much of a territory but also there being many actors with sufficient powers to block, or disrupt things, and the fear of their opposition and violent reaction will often deter many- would be centralizers. Political centralization is likely only when one group of people is sufficiently more powerful than others to build a state. In Somalia, power is evenly balanced, and no one clan impose its will on any other. Therefore, the lack of political centralization persists (p.87)."
VixR
Veritas
^^ To my understanding, this all but means that in yet another way, the clan system has fucked Somalis eternally.
They’re basically saying what you really need is a reigning 1, and everyone else to be demoted to .5 (which I’m learning is code for Bantus)
But then again, attempted subjugation which royally backfired is what lead to this 30 year failed-state humiliation mode the country is currently undergoing.
They’re basically saying what you really need is a reigning 1, and everyone else to be demoted to .5 (which I’m learning is code for Bantus)
But then again, attempted subjugation which royally backfired is what lead to this 30 year failed-state humiliation mode the country is currently undergoing.
VixR
Veritas
Samaalic Era
QurboExit
The 4.5 system is a ridiculous system however the reer xamar and Madowwayne can not have the same representation as ethnic Somalis.
Clans is deeply entrenched in Somalis and eliminating it would be impossible except through mass murder. We have to accommodate it but it should never been the driving factor in politics
1) 0.5 is not codeword for Bantu's. But for smaller minority clans like Bantus, cadcads, and madhibaan.
2) clan system prevents subjugation. That one clan puts its will on others.
VixR
Veritas
It will always be the driving factor so long as it exists. How come the four clans didn’t duke it out sufficiently in ancient times lol?
Apparently, they’re too equal to allow themselves to be subject to the others, so it’s a constant power struggle.
If we’re to believe the excerpt, Somalia was doomed from inception because of the 4 clans. So interesting.
On 2) What’s the biggest clan of the four with the greatest land mass? How come the numbers don’t seem to matter?
You’d think the biggest clan would’ve overpowered and absorbed the others.
Apollo
VIP
The 4.5 system is a temporary solution to help transition a highly tribal society into a more modern form. You can't expect party politics based on ideology in a highly tribal society that just underwent a clan based civil war (at least in the early phase, now it's more of a weird mix between clan antagonisms and religious fundamentalism).
VixR
Veritas
I wonder when 4.5 was established? I have to agree with Samaalic when he says it would take a mass casualty event to abolish it, because otherwise, what’s the incentive for abandoning tribal identity politics? And yet, considering the mass body count of the civil war itself, and if we take into consideration the countless secondary deaths throughout the decades long unrest, it’s harrowing to think about.
I don't quite understand the question. Are you asking whether it's a good/bad system or whether we should get rid of it?
