Decolonization of the Third World: a historic mistake?

Was the independence of Third World colonies a mistake?

What if the independence of former colonies was a mistake? The question cuts through an issue that allows no half measures. Some argue that self-determination was granted without demanding anything in return, and that 2026 proves it: with the technology available, a large part of those countries remains mired in poverty.

Self-sufficiency, the requirement that was never demanded

The central thesis is that the right to self-determination should have been conditional on the capacity for self-governance. Independence should only be allowed after demonstrating self-sufficiency equivalent to that of the colonizing country. Along those lines, some propose putting developing nations back under tutelage because, if by 2026 they have not managed to escape poverty, it is taken as proof that they cannot organize themselves. The mention of Rhodesia is cited as evidence that independence does not by itself guarantee pogre.

Was the mistake independence, or abandonment?

Against this, another current prefers not to blame decolonization itself, but rather how it was carried out. It stresses that the United States, the USSR and European powers in decline forced rushed processes, disregarding ethnicities, religions and real borders. The result was what it was. And then there is the migration front: if the problem is that the doors are open, independence stops being the mistake and becomes a symptom of something deeper.

The discussion ends where it begins: whether the blame lies with the colonizers for leaving, with the colonized for not managing on their own, or with everyone for failing to plan birth control. The most repeated solution is not to return the colonies, but to close borders. Perhaps because that is the only thing that does not require judging whether independence was a mistake or a liberation.