Hacker News Reader

Comment by realusername | Hacker News Reader

> While we can debate the relative merits and demerits of the CFA, it is still quite very strange and quite frankly colonial that the arrangement continues.

It continues because it's becoming an African euro-zone, having the same currency is invaluable. Especially that the African currencies don't have a reputation for stability. It's not a coincidence Mali & Guinea left and then came back in.

> Lastly, one just has to compare the state of Francophone African states towards most of the Anglo states, they are on by definition normally poorer and more fragile

I don't really agree with that, you have counter example in both cases, on my case I could point Cote d'Ivoire where the Bank of Africa is located and on the other Anglo side you have Uganda which isn't exactly an example of a rich country, the Franc CFA definitely helped for that.

View on HN

West Africa, the region with the most greatest number of Francophone states and influence is largely the poorest African region(some like to argue Central Africa, but people debate its composition and shape more readily than West Africa). My experiences in the region often reveal great resentment with the nature of French involvement within their political economy. Now you may disagree with that and think its all hunky dory in those countries, but for me its quite strange as a Ghanaian American to see, and we often feel sorry for them. We feel especially sorry for Togo, our bordering country next door which has lived under a family dynasty for 51 years, a dynasty overtly supported by France.

And we definitely felt sorry for Ivory Coast when French special forces busted into their presidential palace to resolve a domestic electoral dispute. But hey CFA Franc, stability and all that, yeah!

> And we definitely felt sorry for Ivory Coast when French special forces busted into their presidential palace to resolve a domestic electoral dispute.

You're referring to French forces arresting Laurent Gbagbo when he refused to cede power after losing the 2010 election?

Allowing his winning opponent to assume the presidency? Extraditing Gbagbo to stand trial at ICC in The Hague? Where there's a chance he might be acquitted of the crimes against humanity he's charged with for formenting election violence that killed 1,400+ people?

As far as terrible abuses of colonial power, enabling the transition to a democratically elected government and trying the former leader in a fair court of law (where he stands a chance of defending himself) isn't the best example.

Some will say that it was a good intervention, in my opinion it is the continued and sustained pattern of French intervention that has resulted in the continued fragile nature of these states. And oh please we all know it wasn't really about "democratization", it was about removing an opponent of French geopolitical aims.

Ivory Coast background - France enables a local despot, known as Felix Boigny, who does enable local economic growth but institutionalizes power to such an extent that the county falls into civil war and disrepair upon his death in the 1990s, leading to two civil wars in which France plays a major role.

Togo coup of 1963 in which France played a role - Togo remains a dictatorship for 53 years and now has a large and enraged protest movement. The regime has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of dissidents.

Cameroon's backing of Paul Biya - Despite his continued anti-democratic manners and blatant electoral rigging, France sticks by their man, leading to now a insurgent civil war in Anglophone Cameroon.

The Libyan intervention - What can be said that hasn't been said, a new failed state, arms flowing across the subregion which leads to trouble across the Sahel in Mali and Northern Nigeria.

And these are just a few examples.

I feel like at this point we have seen various different approaches to working with/in Africa and they are all not exactly a raving success.

Nobody's arguing colonial history doesn't have a huge number of mistakes.

But now, at this moment, policy going forward -- if not supporting democracy, democratically elected leaders, and the regular, peaceful transition of power, then what?

It's easy to cast stones, but useless without a better, prescriptive alternative.

Non-intervention on the world's part is why Gaddafi (42 years), Biya (43), Obiang (39), dos Santos (38), Mugabe (37), Museveni (33), etc. have been able (and are still able, in many cases) to rule their countries for decades.

Or, as Obama put it in his interview with Seinfeld in response to a question about how many world leaders are crazy, "A pretty sizable percentage [...] Part of what happens is, these guys, I think the longer they stay in office, the more likely that is to happen."

I would love a wonderful world in which France generally supported democratic leaders and encouraged democratization. Such a world would likely prove the death knell of Francafrique. But it is a complete falsehood that France has that vision, it still supports scores of tyrants in the region, and has looked past the way quite a number of times in the last three years alone.

You seem to think this is still “colonial history”. It is very much still modern history.

I think France balances realpolitik against its ethics, with a veneer of corruption on top. Same as any world power.

That said, in comparison to post-WWII refuse-to-decolonize France? Objectively, modern France is far more ethical.

In regards to speed, as a political science professor once quiped to me, 'Countries don't change. The people with one set of ideas just get old and die.'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com