This is a pet theory of mine. Just thought I'd lob it in here and see what other's thoughts are.
Here's the thing : most of the political and racial problems around the world are a 'hangover' from periodical 'Imperial' carve-ups of land.
It suited the British and Dutch–amongst others–for instance, to carve up areas of Africa geographically for administrative purposes. The problem is (was) that they failed to take into account natural tribal borders. Rather they would just run a straight line across the map. Or split a land mass up along a river.
This approach split natural communities and created administrative areas that contained disparate tribes that may have actually been enemies for centuries.
Left alone, nations would have formed in their own good time.
Whether this was done on purpose or not, is another issue.
What I'm getting at is that many of the entities we consider nations today, are artificial. They have no historical validity or inherent social cohesion.
To bring some relevance to this topic, the idea that democracy can be imposed on such states ignores the possibility that these states are inherently unstable, and will never work as democracies, given the disconnect between the various groups of peoples living there.
Current US policies in the middle-east appear to be making similar miscalculations.
Top
