[Dave]

But they didn't fight on ethnic lines but on nationalist lines. You haven't given evidence that proves homegenous society are less likely to have civil wars than heterogenous societies. Right now this merely a theory that supports your racial politics.

Statistical meta-analyses exist showing that civil war is in fact far more prevalent is ethnically hetereogeneous nations. As this thread pertains to Uganda, the Lord's Resistance Army is predominantly Acholi and Langi if memory serves, whereas the Buganda have traditionally controlled the state. While I suppose this theory does serve my racial politics, I don't have any vested interest in applying my principles to Africa and merely note that it's easier to cooperate on resource distribution when you're not dealing with rival ethnic groups.

You can't compare Kenya to Somalia. Its like Comparing America to Haiti and saying Haiti is doing economically just a little below America.

According to CIA Factsheet:


Kenya: PPP $63.52 billion (2009 est.)
GDP - per capita -1,600 (2009 est.)

Unemployment rate:

40% (2008 est.)


Industrial production growth rate:

2% (2009 est.)

Industries:
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
small-scale consumer goods (plastic, furniture, batteries, textiles, clothing, soap, cigarettes, flour), agricultural products, horticulture, oil refining; aluminium, steel, lead; cement, commercial ship repair, tourism


Somalia:
PPP
$5.733 billion (2009 est.)

GDP - per capita
$600 (2009 est.)
Industries:
a few light industries, including sugar refining, textiles, wireless communication

industrial production growth rate:

NA%

I just looked at Wikipedia quickly and saw an estimated $795 per capita GDP PPP for Somalia. After looking at the Kenya article again I see that I took the nominal figure ($832) as opposed to the PPP figure ($1,711), so clearly I made an error. The figures for the other states however were PPP.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Statistical meta-analyses exist showing that civil war is in fact far more prevalent is ethnically hetereogeneous nations.

Can you provide an academic paper on this?

As this thread pertains to Uganda, the Lord's Resistance Army is predominantly Acholi and Langi if memory serves, whereas the Buganda have traditionally controlled the state.

The LRA isn't fighting an ethnic power war against the Buganda, in-fact most of their victims are the Acholi and Langi.

it's easier to cooperate on resource distribution when you're not dealing with rival ethnic groups.

There is no proof for this. Conflicts aren't as simple as ethnic difference.

[Dave]

Can you provide an academic paper on this?

Yes, though not immediately. I can furnish such a paper within a few days.

The LRA isn't fighting an ethnic power war against the Buganda, in-fact most of their victims are the Acholi and Langi.

Isn't it the case that they began (or pretended) to be rebels against the government but devolved into a corrupt gang exploiting the people they have domain over?

There is no proof for this. Conflicts aren't as simple as ethnic difference.

There can be no proof, since correlation does not imply causation. Conflicts in general arise over different interests, and an example of different interests can be different ethnic groups inhabiting the same territory or sharing the same power structure. Obviously this does not mean that all conflicts have an ethnic basis or that all multiethnic societies result in conflict, which of course would be an absurd proposition.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Yes, though not immediately. I can furnish such a paper within a few days.

I'll be looking forward to it.

Isn't it the case that they began (or pretended) to be rebels against the government but devolved into a corrupt gang exploiting the people they have domain over?

No, their ideology has never been logical from the beginning. Joseph Kony who is the leader of the LRA said he had contacted spiritual mediums and through it received God's order that he bring the ten commandments into national law. The LRA are considered the least understood rebel group. They have no real political agenda, they switch factions often, they violate their religious doctrine and don't seem concerned with moving inland to take control of the government. They don't have a domain where they exploit people either. Exploiting would mean that people remain alive. They hunt down children and force them to kill their parents. The children are then indoctrinated into the LRA as sex-slaves, soldiers or slaves.

[Kaspar]

While I agree with Dave that multi-ethnic nations are more likely to experience a civil war, I think he's applying that belief to Africa's recent conflicts too severely.

In my opinion, a great deal of the conflict Africa experiences stems back to the very nature of the African continent. Unlike Europe, African governments have been forced to rule over large swaths of land with little population, with the exceptions of one or maybe two major urban centers. This geographic situation lends itself to a form of politics divided along domestic regional lines, regardless of what ethnic groups actually occupy the country. Such a division in the political landscape of a country is disastrous if it wishes to develop economically while remaining united nationally.

Often times, such regional divides actually create new "ethnic" groups solely due to these geographic differences. While a region may be ethnically homogeneous, different clans begin to form, independent villages form, governments within a single government form. In my opinion, this is what causes the conflict in Africa, not the mere fact that there are different ethnic groups inhabiting a single nation.

In focusing on what appears to be ethnically incited violence, I think Dave isn't properly noting the effects of geography on Africa's developing nations, especially in Africa's democratic nations.

[millie_(A)TCK]

That in itself doesn't create conflict Kaspar. Botswana has the second lowest population density in Africa after Namibia and it is the most stable country in sub-saharan Africa. The country on the other hand with the highest population density in Africa (20th in the world), Rwanda, had the continents worst genocide. Clearly conflict in Africa isn't then related to population density.

[Kaspar]

I think it's safe to say that it's a pretty multi-faceted issue. But yeah, I agree that that idea doesn't apply to many African countries.

If there's one thing we should all be able to agree on in this thread is that there isn't one set reason for why so many African nations are underdeveloped.

[millie_(A)TCK]

If there's one thing we should all be able to agree on in this thread is that there isn't one set reason for why so many African nations are underdeveloped.

My remark about gatekeeper states wasn't refuted actually.

[Political Interest]

Was it not because of post-independence mismanagement and colonialism that Africa is in its current state?