It's not more than about 50 years since Africa was left to fend for itself after the European powers left. Considering that it took hundreds of years with more wars than anyone care to count before Europe became the peaceful and prosperous place it is today I don't think Africa is doing that badly.
Poland lost 17% of its population in WWII. Local elites and leaders who didn't end in mass graves or concentration camps during the war, were imprisoned or murdered by post-war collaborators. The Red Army left in '93 and 20 years later it's a perfectly fine place to live.
I don't buy colonialism as the explanation.
The difference between the colonial powers leaving Africa and the Soviet Union leaving Eastern Europe was that the Soviet Union didn't take with them everyone that worked in any kind of administration and most people who could read when they left. In Poland the guys that was in charge of the central mail administration didn't flee the country. The Department of Transportation didn't burn all their archives and jumped on the first ship out of the country. That was what happened in most of Africa. Almost all the people who had been in charge and had any knowledge fled. That didn't happen in Eastern Europe in nearly the same degree.
In other words, the first sin was to colonize the continent in the first place, destroy existing civil structures, and exploit the land and the population as they did. The second sin was to very abruptly abandon them and leave them without even the structures that had replace the original ones.
In current Iraq and Afghanistan the US at least try to make sure that there is some kind of stable regime before they leave. Of course it might have been better to not invade in the first place, but since they did, it is their responsibility to try to make sure that some kind of civilian society have a chance when they leave.
It could be a matter of degree. It might sound radical but what if I told you that Soviet occupation wasn't as brutal as British occupation. Soviets didn't tolerate political dissent. But they did give everyone an apartment, free (including higher) education, healthcare.
Did the British empire have those programs. Free healthcare, education, and minimum living space? I kind of doubt it.
I think over and over there are examples (China, ex Soviet Union, various other dictatorships) where people would accept a warm bed, safety, being able to work, get healthcare with sever restrictions to speech and travel vs having the freedom for speech, travel, but not having the minimum basic necessities.
There aren't too many recent cases were people oppressed politically were able to win the majority and overthrow the government and turn it into a democracy when there is otherwise enough stability economic, social to start with.
Americans I feel (and I would know, I live here too now) have swallowed quite a bit of propaganda and they will tell you long stories about how Democracy is just the best, capitalism is the best etc etc. I used to think that too, but I am not so sure anymore. Maybe that is why a lot of wars are sold to the American people "we are bringing Democracy" and "Freedom". That has a good local appeal. Internationally maybe others read that in the same category as North Korea telling its people they live on Paradise on Earth.
1. I don't disagree about the Maslow's heirachy thing. If i was near starvation i wouldn't turn away bread from a dictator.
2. Two examples of countries who have recently won democracy: South Korea and Taiwan. Both made the trnasition with minimal violence.
3. I talk to older friends who came from Eastern Block countries and they describe their respective systems (before democracy) as completely and utterly demoralizing. You have no hope of anything better. Your lot in life will also be at the will of someone else.
3. You also have to keep in mind that people you talk to here from EB countries are probably well above average. They probably had enough smarts and drive to get out. They are also more likely to not like their old countries. (Well I don't like it either but I am trying to take a more objective approach). Notice how we also carefully transitioned to comparing Soviet occupation to living in US probably working in the tech sector (and I am certainly guilty of it as well). Remember we should have been comparing the post Soviet period in EB countries to African post-colonial countries.
If you're thinking about the period when Africa was ruled by European power, I'd say it didnt help (mostly because of the deeply authoritarian aspect of that rule) but there wasnt much to destroy at that point.
Then there is the period Right before which has some deeper effect on trust, corruption, institutions, stability, trade, population movements: the transatlantic slave trade.
Edit: and the eastern one too.
That is a myth that the colonizers were very happy to bolster, for obvious reasons.
"Don't even bother with the user "newnewnew"" - Ignore and ostracise those with opposing views. How open minded of you.
They had perhaps some authority structures, some nation and ethnicity based borders, perhaps less civil war type conflicts. At least that was taken away. Whether it would have been better for British and others to stay away is hard to say.
The soil is so volatile that wheels end up being dragged in the dirt, hence camels. It would have been cool if they had invented primitive AT STs though!