One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.
Umm no. That depends on defining "better off" as "ruled by invaders from another country but with some economic or social benefits(probably)".
Just try offering colonial rule to former colonies, who have experience of being "better off". People might joke about that, but an independent country's citizens would fight to the death against any attempt at colonization. Which means they do think they are better off without colonial rule. Unless you think millions of people don't know what is "better off" for them, your notion is hard to sustain logically.
Unless you want to volunteer to be colonized by China (say)? They seem to be good at economic development, which seems to be your metric for "better off".
The other thing I find interesting is that we seem to be left with no options for solving the problems of these struggling post-colonial nations. Some certainly prospered economically after the ruling colonial powers left. Some suffered immensely. If one accepts that institutional order is a prerequisite for economic prosperity, then one might conclude that an outside power should take over and institute order, but the obvious moral problems prevents this. Not to mention the historically supported unlikelihood that the country would actually benefit. The only solution appears to be institutional order that grows organically from within the country. Outside aid doesn't seem to help much. This leaves very few options for the Haiti's and the Camaroon's of the world.
The argument is basically racist, they don't know what's good for them, let's show them. It ignores that the western world has a 300 years development advantage concerning democratic institutions and the economy.
or just read this article again and consider how close it is to living under foreign rule - colonialism replaced whatever working, local solutions existed with a system that meant that the logical thing to do was screw over others. colonialism and dictators are very similar.
you can argue that things only collapsed terribly when the colonists left, but that ignores the fact that it would have been so much better if they had never been there...
This reminds me of how in the UK parliament the political parties bicker about who's fault something is. Most of the ex-colonies have been autonomous more than long enough to establish their own stable governance if the combined will of the people were for it.
The first govt of independent Cameroon presumably inherited reasonable infrastructure, law and order, functioning courts etc. (maybe. I dont know much about Cameroon) That first government, having inherited all of this stuff they didn't organize and having zero previous experience with running a country, may well rest on its laurels and assume that this stuff just happens and requires little or no effort to maintain/enhance. If they're really (un)lucky they may well inherent a well functioning society that also produces abundant tax revenue which is surely more than is really required so no one will miss a bit...
It would only be years later that it would become apparent that effective courts, safe streets etc do in fact require organized effort applied in specific ways. And that all of that tax revenue was needed.
A rational exploiter might try to revenue maximize. Someone trying to do good/to be fair/to "encourage good behavior" is likely to do economically stupid things.
Irrelevant because that wasn't the assumption.
There's a reason why "he meant well" is an insult....