This is an incomplete post. Please finish your thought and take it to its final conclusion for the sake of clarity.
Am I correct to assume that you think a dictator would work if they were raised in a domestic african school system?
My direct reply to the original post explains everything more clearly.
If a dictator is raised in a homogeneous environment within a domestic African school of thought, prioritizing their own people would be their main goal. This fosters social cohesion and a shared purpose rooted in common history, culture, and identity. Doing otherwise would bring shame and dishonor, as their community would hold them accountable. I’ll explain this further below.
First, let’s address the distorted narrative about what a “dictator” is. Many think a dictator is just a power-hungry maniac who kills anyone who opposes them. That’s not always true. Dictators can be benevolent and in our historical context were mostly benevolent leaders enforcing social norms for stability. Dictators can work with teams. In fact, there isn't a way for a dictator to completely work alone and decide every single thing. For example, Osei Tutu II, the Ashanti king, was a dictator in the sense of holding strong authority, but he was a good one, uniting his people under shared values. Otherwise, how do you build a new state without consensus on laws or government structure? Imagine trying to start a state where everyone disagrees on the basics. Some have historically accepted women in their councils and leadership, others never did; some demand their language, others insist on theirs. Colonial languages? No, they erase identity. One group’s attire, land, or leader? No, another group’s. This chaos happens because African states often lack shared foundations. It is a huge problem, the fact that in many of our modern states, what connects the state together, at the base, are the outsourced and forced European values and norms.
However, in homogeneous traditionalist states, a strong dictator from the overwhelm majority group can align everyone on the basics, thus reducing conflict and focusing mostly on what the majority truly needs. Because he is conscious that to his group, he will be seen as a huge failure and an eternal boogeyman, in case he fails to properly lead his homogeneous nation. Right now, the way our systems were established, the dictator doesn't need to care about the true voices of the majority because they are not related to him and those related to him benefit the most from his corrupt leadership.
Second, there’s a flawed narrative about “own people” when it comes to Black Africans and their descendants. It’s been reduced to “they share the same skin color, physical features, or genetic proximity, so they should work together.” If they don’t, people assume they’re just incapable of cooperation. This oversimplified view isn’t applied elsewhere. This is a form of psychological warfare used against us.
No one expects Koreans, Japanese, and Han Chinese(despite similar appearances and genetics) to merge into one nation without issues. It led to wars when tried. No one thinks Germans, Russians, and Poles could blend seamlessly without wars. It doesn’t work for Russia and Ukraine, despite shared genetic and language roots, or for Yugoslavia, which broke apart violently. Yet, they have programmed us to believe Yorubas (who built states like Owo, Oyo, and Ife) and Hausas (who created states like Zazzau, Gobir, and Kano) should ignore thousands of years of distinct histories, languages, and systems to act as one, just because European colonialists forced them together in the 20th century for their own gain. And this applies across Africa when you substitute Yoruba and Hausa with any other groups, and the issue persists. Forcing unity under artificial borders ignores Africa’s diverse, pre-colonial societies, each with sophisticated governance tailored to their needs. This sets the stage for conflict and failure.
In addition, and this is very important to notice...If you look at modern African dictators with strong ties to their traditional or ethnic backgrounds, you easily see that their ethnic groups often dominate the upper class, controlling key political, economic, and military positions. These leaders prioritize their ethnic group because they identify with them, since it’s natural. This isn’t unique to Africa; ethnic favoritism happens worldwide. But it’s worse in many African states where colonial borders ignored ethnic realities. In our cases, loyalty to one’s group overshadows any “national” unity, because these groups were already their own nations.
This forced unity also breeds a depressing idea: assimilating into a “fake nation” means losing your true identity. It erases cultural pride, replacing it with a hollow national construct that feels alien. Leading many to believe that the only way to protect their identity is to put more of their ethnic group in power. This also creates money-obsessed societies where people prioritize personal or ethnic gain over the common good. If a leader from one group controls a region rich in minerals or timber wanted by China or Russia, they’ll exploit it, even if it destroys local communities. Their ancestral land is safe, so they don’t care.
For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, ethnic elites profit from coltan and cobalt deals with foreign powers, while natives in resource-rich areas face violence and displacement.
ATTENTION: Going from the Western part of DRC to the Eastern part of DRC, is approximately the same distance as going from Poland(the Baltic sea part) to Egypt(Cairo, in the Sahara desert). You can check this yourself. Plot on Google Maps, from Kitombe DRC to Arua DRC/Uganda border. Then plot Gdasnk to Cairo. No one who is sane, would ever think about classifying all the ethnic groups located from Baltic-Poland to Sahara-Egypt as a single "nation" and then expect positive results from this "nation". This is peak insanity. The DRC is massive, it has over 2.3 million square kilometers, and with resources concentrated in specific regions, often controlled by specific ethnic elites who are not from the regions being exploited and feel no connection to the broader “nation.”. To summarize, this is the main source of conflict in DRCongo. The exploited lands have native groups. And these native groups were once independent nations, like the Danes, Swedes, or Koreans were tribes with their own lands and identities.
So why do we have to maintain the flawed and forced framework? Because "they are just black and should get along"? Nahhh
When Russia bombs Ukraine and sells Ukrainian resources cheaply to China or Iran or North Korea, we don’t say, “They’re both white, why can’t they get along?”. No, we just see Russia as a state dominated by ethnic Russians pursuing its own interests. Yet, with Africa, Western propaganda has programmed us to believe that “they’re all Black, they should just work together,” ignoring centuries of distinct histories. Not for me. Recognizing ethnic distinctions and allowing more autonomous governance will eliminate most tensions. Groups could focus on their own development without fighting over scraps in artificial states where a few ethnic elites hoard resources and power.
