[adrianN]

Is the current ruling class in these countries better from the point of view of the citizens? (Honest question, I don't know)

Often enough rulers are exploitative regardless whether they sit in London and fill their pockets or in the country's capital.

[pasabagi]

One thing to keep in mind is the balance of power between ruler and ruled. The British, representing a global empire, had always an enormous amount of power over their subjects. They could ignore, murder, torture, or starve their subjects in any one region, then draw upon the resources of all the other regions to suppress revolts. A dictator, no matter how unpleasant, usually doesn't have these resources to call upon, so they have to be much more careful, otherwise they lose enough legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled that the country becomes ungovernable - i.e. there are insufficient state resources to control the unrest.

This is why colonial states tended to be far more brutal than normal dictatorships: ultimately, they don't need to convince anybody that their rule was legitimate, because their core support is global, rather than domestic.

[reillyse]

I’d argue that a local exploitative ruler is far preferable to a remote exploitative ruler. With the local ruler the wealth stays in the region. The plight of the inhabitants is more apparent to the ruler. With remote exploitation the wealth leaves the country and the country is sucked dry. The exploiter can ignore the results of the exploitation and just live large on the proceeds.

[lostlogin]

The British in India were a good example of this. The scale of the exploitation was truely incredible.