[Joe 6-pack]

I beg to differ. As a former Army officer I am a student and careful observer of military, political and business leaders and managers. The tyrannical leader is generally effective, but I don't consider them successful. My definition of a succesful leader is one who can motivate people to WANT to do something rather than one who MAKES someone do something. It's my definition, so I should have been more clear up front, but in my mind, the two are quite distinct. In any case, Africans generally have failed at both.

[Restorer]

Sorry, my point was semantic. When you say someone is managing their own affairs, it is generally implied that this management if effective and successful.

Everyone manages their own affairs whether they want to or not, it's just that some do a terrible job at it.

As you say, African tyrants have generally not been either effective or successful.

BTW, IMHO most tyrannies are not nearly as effective as they appear to be on the surface. The classic is the incredibly wasteful Soviet system, but even the Nazi system wasted tremendous amounts of human energy and military potential. The most obvious example being their obsession on using transport to haul people all over Europe to the death camps rather than for desperately-needed military purposes.