Is it true that Botswana is the only country in Africa that has had genuinely good and productive leadership...

I've seen people say it's because they aren't overly democratic with the diamond company having a big league influence on the government.
Is this BS?

Their mineral wealth wasn't really discovered until after they acquired independence, peacefully. Local hierarchies weren't really dismantled by colonial powers, nor did these colonial powers exert much control (or even showed much interest) over the native population.

SO: the natives didn't lose management when the colonials left because they pretty had been managing themselves already, they didn't face destruction of infra-structure or militarization of society because they haven't really had any significant conflicts, and their native political class was never as much oriented towards models of wealth extraction as the tribal chiefs that were puppets to colonial powers.

They're a racially homogenous country, that's the one circumstance is which democracy works really well, so their relative lack of it is not a strength for Botswana, although it would be for a more typical post-colonial African country. The diamond industry IS the economy, so of course it basically dictates how the economy of the country is run, the reason Botswana has not become a failed state is at least in part because even tho the diamond companies control the country, they're not so stupid that they totally starve the central government of funds, which allows said state to provide many basic services for Botswanans. They could be a very rich welfare-society like the UEA or Norway but the level of corruption, tho lower than most of Africa, is sky high.

Vitally, they were also not lumped together with a whole bunch of other peoples with very different cultures and lifestyles, like most Africa states were, which allowed them to avoid the terrible cycle of tribalism and ethnic strife that has prevented Africa from moving forwards.

>They're a racially homogenous country
just looking at wikipedia it says the major ethnic group is 79% while the 2nd biggest is 11%

>I think you will agree that Botswana is on a level with a country like India or Mexico in terms of development
Mexico is miles ahead of both India and Botswana.

Now compare that to other African countries, many of which have no single majority race. Also many of those are blacks who have come into Botswana to mine diamonds (the natives Botswanans consider mining to be beneath them), at independence the country was closer to 90% one race.

Liberia before the civil war.

But that was basically black on black apartheid...

I'd agree, it is far more industrialized. But if we had to take a wager, and you'd have an equiprobable chance of landing in any spot in each country, I'd probably feel safer betting on Botswana though, as it has a lower murder rate and no cartel-controled regions. Also has less people dying of diarreha than India, and it is easy to avoid AIDS compared to having to avoid poor hygiene at street level. The best spots are in Mexico, and India probably also has spots better than any in Botswana, but I'm pretty sure the worst in Botswana isn't as scary as the worst in Mexico and India.

Botswana is the most free-market economy in Africa, and since economic freedom is strongly correlated with things like high HDI, good GDP per capita, and low corruption, Botswana tends to benefit from its relatively free market system.

Essentially this. They export raw materials and import virtually everything else, so tarrifs and the graft that comes with them are out of the question, and since what they trade in is a legal, high quality, high demand resource there is usually a clear paper trail that allows the state to get its share. Of course the state is corrupt as hell, but without the severe racial divides of other African nations it does a more equitable job than usual, and has more money per head to do it with, too.

Tanzania also had good leadership.