Colonial Policies in Africa 9781512819342

Citation preview

AFRICAN HANDBOOKS: 5

Colonial Policies in Africa

AFRICAN HANDBOOKS: Edited by

H.

A.

5

WIESCHHOFF

Committee on African Studies, University of Pennsylvania

COLONIAL POLICIES IN AFRICA By H. A. Wieschhoff

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM Philadelphia 19 4 4

Copyright 1944 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS

Manufactured

in the United States of America LONDON

HUMPHREY MILFORD O X F O R D UNIVERSITY PRESS

PREFACE There can be little doubt that the many problems affecting colonial areas of the world will become increasingly acute as we approach the time when the world settles down to discuss its immediate future at the peace conference. In the past, colonial affairs have received only scant attention, and Americans particularly have been oblivious to the importance which colonial areas have in any system of world security or world stability. The mere fact that almost half of the world's population lives in a state of colonial dependency should emphasize the importance of these areas and should furthermore convince us that the political, economic, and social position of colonial peoples cannot be a matter of indifference to us. This book deals with only one section of the colonial world, namely Africa. Although the problems of colonial policies which have been discussed here are for the most part typically African, many of these problems are equally applicable to other regions which are subject to colonial rule. Major emphasis has been placed upon the politically dependent territories of the African continent, but it was considered necessary to include in this study the Union of South Africa as well. As an independent dominion this country falls technically outside any discussion of colonial policy, but since South Africa's Native policy is of a peculiar nature and has greatly influenced policies of adjacent dependent territories, occasional reference to the Union of South Africa was not only unavoidable but mandatory. I should like to express my appreciation to Miss Abby Jane Woodle for her assistance in the preparation of the manuscript and for the population statistics on pp. 9-15 for which she is largely responsible. H. A. W. Philadelphia February 1944

CONTENTS Chapter

I II

Page

PREFACE

V

INTRODUCTION

1

DO

DEPENDENCIES

PAY?

16

III

THE

P R I N C I P L E S OF C O L O N I A L P O L I C I E S

25

IV

THE

S T A T E D A I M S OF C O L O N I A L R U L E

62

V

THE

FUTURE

OF C O L O N I A L

DEPENDENCIES

117

APPENDIX

124

BIBLIOGRAPHY

126

INDEX

133

I INDEPENDENT £

1 BRITISH TERRITORIES BR. MANDATES UNION OF SO. AFRICA MANDATE OF UNION OF SO. A F R I C A

i

I FRENCH TERRITORIES 1

I FR. MANDATES

U l l i BELGIAN TERRITORY 1 1 1 BELGIAN MANDATE W B

PORTUGUESE TERRITORIES

H i l l ITALIAN TERRITORIES i

I SPANISH TERRITORIES P O L I T I C A L D I V I S I O N S OF

AFRICA

Chapter I INTRODUCTION Africa, unlike the two American continents which consist of many politically independent states and territories, is made u p of politically dependent territories, similar to large parts of Asia. Aside from Liberia, Ethiopia, and Egypt, all other African territories fo.rm part of European-centered colonial empires. Even the three independent states do not enjoy all those privileges which we commonly associate with autonomous countries. Liberia, the least restricted of these states because of its ethnic background and historical development, is not entirely free from American tutelage, which, although given in Liberia's interest, influences to some degree the function of an independent sovereign state. Ethiopia, on the other hand, after its resurrection from Italian rule in 1941, owes its independence to the Agreement and Military Convention signed between Great Britain a n d Ethiopia on J a n u a r y 31, 1942, which subjects Ethiopia, temporarily at least, to restrictions not altogether compatible with the sovereign rights of a state (London Times, February 4, 1942). Theoretically Egypt gained her independence in 1922; actually only after the signing of both the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Alliance on August 26, 1937, and the Montreux Convention on M a y 8, 1937. Even after these declarations went into effect, however, Great Britain reserved certain rights which m a d e the complete exercise of Egyptian sovereignty ineffective. Perhaps the most independent position among African territories is held by a fourth state, the Union of South Africa. Although technically a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, as a territory with dominion status it has enjoyed complete sovereignty ever since this status was granted by Great Britain in 1910. T h e fact that the U n i o n of South Africa, like the Dominion of C a n a d a or Australia, determines its own domestic and external affairs and in the execution of these affairs is not subordinated to Great Britain is amply manifested by South Africa's independent declaration of war against the Axis powers. With the exception of these four territories the whole African continent is directly controlled by six European powers, namely, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and, for record's sake, Italy. If we include the Union of South Africa, British Africa 1

2

AFRICAN COLONIAL POLICIES

may be said to cover one-fourth of the African territory, with a population of 62,000,000. T h e French territories comprise a somewhat larger area which, however, contains a smaller population of 38,000,000. T h e accompanying chart on pp. 9 - 1 5 presents the various African territories in their political grouping as well as the most important d a t a regarding the population of these areas. I n common speech we are inclined to refer to the politically dependent territories simply as colonies, or, better, as dependencies, the latter term becoming rightly more popular and a term which will be used in conjunction with dependent areas in this volume when speaking about such territories generically. Within the African continent four different types of dependent areas may be distinguished, namely, the colonies proper, the colonial protectorates, protectorates proper, and mandates. While it may be difficult to distinguish between some of these types a n d inasmuch as these four categories have only developed historically, it will be necessary to clarify the basic types of dependencies. T h e mandates were created after World W a r I when the former G e r m a n (and Turkish) territories in Africa and in the Pacific, as well as in the Near East, were placed under the League of Nations which, in Article 22 of its Covenant (see Appendix I), set forth certain principles for the administration of territories by those powers to w h o m the mandates were entrusted. Regarding the African territories, distinctions were d r a w n between the former German colony of South West Africa on the one h a n d and former German East Africa, Togo, a n d Cameroon on the other. T h e former became known as a " C " mandate, which, according to Article 22 of the Covenant, should be "administered under the laws of the M a n d a t o r y as integral portions of its territory." This m a n d a t e was assigned to the Union of South Africa. T h e other three German territories which were given into the care of Great Britain, France, and Belgium, were classified as " B " mandates with the specification that they be administered under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morale, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defense of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League (see Appendix).

T h e underlying philosophy, common to all mandates, was "the principle that the well-being a n d development of such [Native]

INTRODUCTION

3

peoples f o r m a sacred trust of civilization." T h u s , m a n d a t e s were territories nominally u n d e r the L e a g u e of Nations to w h o m the mandatories were responsible for their actions, a n d the P e r m a n e n t M a n d a t e s Commission was charged w i t h their i m m e d i a t e supervision. T h e A f r i c a n territories h a v i n g protectorate status are Morocco, Tunisia, a n d Z a n z i b a r . I n the strict sense of the word, these are states u n d e r a n internationally recognized ruler w h o subjects his own g o v e r n m e n t a n d c o u n t r y to the protection of a superior protecting state. T h e administrative m a c h i n e r y is nominally left in the h a n d s of the N a t i v e g o v e r n m e n t , a l t h o u g h the controlling power by act of protection agreements has regulating authority which invariably turns into far-reaching control of the respective countries not only politically b u t socially a n d economically as well. Besides the o r d i n a r y protectorates in Africa there are several other protectorates w h i c h h a v e different status a n d which m i g h t b e referred to as colonial protectorates, since I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a w , rightly or wrongly, does not recognize their protectorate status in the same sense as t h a t g r a n t e d to M o r o c c o or Z a n z i b a r . R e g a r d i n g these protectorates, O p p e n h e i m , in his International Law, says t h a t : In the second half of the nineteenth century the desire of States to acquire as colonies vast territories which they were not able to occupy effectively at once led to agreements with the chiefs of Natives inhabiting unoccupied territories by which these chiefs committed themselves to the "protectorate" of States that are members of the Family of Nations. These so-called protectorates are certainly not protectorates in the technical sense of the term . . . because the respective chiefs of Natives are not the Heads of States but Heads of tribal communities only. Such agreements, although they are named "protectorates," are nothing else than steps taken to exclude other Powers from occupying the respective territories. They give, like discovery, an inchoate title and are the precursors of future occupations (87, 454-55).* Although this position w h i c h is held by the great m a j o r i t y of international lawyers m a y b e seriously challenged, since the E u r o p e a n centered interpretation of " t r i b a l c o m m u n i t i e s " is not tenable in the light of m o d e r n anthropological research, such a n a r g u m e n t is superfluous since most of t h e colonial m a n d a t e s h a v e been unilaterally abolished. I n the British E m p i r e only has the protectorate survived to the present w h e r e it is distinguished somewhat f r o m the ordinary colony, as w e shall see subsequently. * Italic figures refer to numbered items in Bibliography.

4

AFRICAN COLONIAL POLICIES

T h e f o u r t h type of African dependencies, colonies proper, are the most c o m m o n f o r m of colonial territories. All of t h e Portuguese, Italian, a n d F r e n c h territories in Africa fall into this category with the exception of Algeria, F r e n c h Morocco, Tunisia, a n d Spanish M o r o c c o a n d the T a n g i e r zone. Few of t h e British territories in Africa are considered colonies in t h e strict sense of the w o r d . In the West A f r i c a n sphere of G a m b i a , Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria, only small coastal areas are r e g a r d e d as colonies; t h e main parts of these large territories are t e r m e d colonial protectorates. I n East Africa the situation is slightly different; in K e n y a the colony is r a t h e r large b u t nevertheless quite distinct f r o m the protectorate. U g a n d a , N y a s a l a n d , a n d N o r t h e r n Rhodesia are r e g a r d e d as protectorates, a l t h o u g h this status m a y be questioned; a n d Southern Rhodesia is clearly a colony (a self-governing colony), while British Somaliland is again a protectorate in the same sense as the greater p a r t of the West African colonies. H e r e m a y b e a d d e d a fifth type of dependency, n a m e l y the C o n d o m i n i o n of the Anglo-Egyptian S u d a n . T h i s territory is essentially a colony b u t is held jointly by G r e a t Britain a n d Egypt. As K e i t h has pointed out in his survey of The Governments of the British Empire: it is impossible to draw any clear, logical distinction between a Colony and a Protectorate in the British Empire system, for the status of the different parts of the Empire has been largely determined by historical accident and not regulated by any definite legal theory. A Colony doubtlessly suggests British settlement oversea . . . or again, the term Colony suggests organized administration and Protectorate a mere control of a native administration, but even this distinction is inadequate. There is, however, no clear distinction in law between a Colony and a Protectorate. The former is part of the possessions of the Crown; all persons born therein are British subjects and all British legislation for British possessions extends to it, while in the case of Protectorates legislation by the Imperial Parliament is only applicable when it is clearly apparent from the Act in question that it was intended to apply to Protectorates (62, 463-64). I n general it m a y b e stated t h a t colonies are r e g a r d e d as essential parts of the controlling states in which the a u t h o r i t y of t h a t state is absolute a n d p a r a m o u n t . T h e territory of the colony is a n overseas extension of the m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a b u t w i t h o u t application of the rights, privileges, a n d protection of the métropole. I t is a n area set aside for E u r o p e a n settlement; a n d E u r o p e a n enterprise is the p r i m a r y , if not exclusive, interest of Europeans. I n t h e protectorate t h e interests of the Natives, a l t h o u g h not p r e d o m i n a n t , are regarded seriously. K e n y a is a n e x a m p l e of how this distinction has been

INTRODUCTION

5

made in British colonial affairs. Originally a colonial protectorate secured from the Sultan of Zanzibar, Kenya was found suitable for large-scale European settlement. European settlers, however, came into constant conflict with the Natives, so that the Colonial Office found it advantageous to change the political status of Kenya by the Kenya Annexation Order in Council of 1920, by which order large parts of the protectorate, specifically the territories outside the former domain of the Sultan of Zanzibar, were recognized as a colony, while only the coastal belt retained protectorate status. This change in status apparently legalized the increasing expropriation of Native land and led to the creation of a legislative council from which Natives were barred, only European delegates being appointed by the Governor to represent Native interests. Although British rule has drawn some distinction between a colonial protectorate and a colony, this difference is not of any legal validity in the international position. The legal position of all British dependent areas has been set forth by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890. "This Act contains the declaration that, however the powers of the Crown might have been acquired, whether by treaty, grant, usage, or other lawful means, its jurisdiction is as ample as if it had been derived from the cession or conquest of territory" (38, 799). Similar acts were established by most colonial powers, thus securing for themselves a clear title to their colonial possessions. Although such actions were justified according to the philosophy of those days when imperialism was in its heyday, today we should be inclined to frown upon such unilateral actions which completely disregarded treaties signed with Native African authorities. These different types of dependencies may have some bearing upon the legal and theoretical position of the area as well as upon the administrative apparatus and its immediate control, but basically few differences exist. As has been stated before, the fundamental reason for the existence of these distinctions is historical. These territories, which were acquired in the early part of the last century and up to approximately 1880, were regarded as colonies, that is as outright annexations to the metropolitan country. Then, when in the last decades of the last century the real scramble for Africa began and when colonizing powers had to compete seriously with each other, and the people in the metropolitan areas began to question the morality of such territorial acquisitions, it became fashionable to call such newly acquired territories protectorates or colonial protectorates, terms which intended to denote the civilizatory character of the new acquisitions. Thus, the terms pro tec-

6

AFRICAN COLONIAL POLICIES

torate a n d colonial protectorate were designed to appease those w h o were not convinced t h a t the populated areas should be annexed in the same fashion as, for example, u n p o p u l a t e d segments of the Arctic. T h e fact t h a t I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a w , as cited above, makes no essential distinction between colonies a n d colonial protectorates a n d that the individual powers abolished the differences by special acts, proves the assumption t h a t the creation of colonial protectorates was a convenient m e t h o d by means of which the issue of t h e time could be sidetracked. All colonial powers were involved in this policy of offering " p r o t e c t i o n " to N a t i v e states, G r e a t Britain being the only one which honored at least some of the original treaties which were signed between Native African rulers a n d t h e various British representatives. Most of these " p r o t e c t o r a t e treaties" were completely ignored by the nations agreeing to honor t h e m , a n d most international lawyers f o u n d reasons (within the E u r o p e a n centered laws) to prove t h a t these agreements were really void, or no treaties at all in the international m e a n i n g of t h e w o r d . Thus, de jure as well as de facto, most of the colonial protectorates ceased to exist. France, Italy, Portugal, a n d the former Congo Free State (now Belgian Congo) always regarded a n d treated their d e p e n d e n t areas as colonies only, t h a t is to say, as territories o w n e d without any qualification a n d reservation. T h e situation is slightly different regarding protectorates proper. Tunisia became a F r e n c h protectorate in 1881, Z a n z i b a r a British protectorate in 1890, a n d Morocco was placed u n d e r F r e n c h (and a small portion u n d e r Spanish) protectorate in 1912. O u t r i g h t a n d legal annexation was impossible for several reasons. O u t r i g h t annexation was not favored by the ordinary citizen at h o m e as a result of h u m a n i t a r i a n a n d financial considerations; b u t , m o r e imp o r t a n t t h a n that, the three territories in question h a d a strategic location a n d were therefore contested by several E u r o p e a n powers who were not willing to acquiesce to bloodless a n n e x a t i o n . Italy h a d strong interests in Tunisia a n d opposed the F r e n c h move of establishing a protectorate; however, since confronted w i t h a fait accompli, insisted not only on protectorate status b u t also on recognition of Italy's special interests. Z a n z i b a r was placed in t h e care of G r e a t Britain after the latter h a d t u r n e d Heligoland over to G e r m a n y a n d guaranteed F r a n c e a free h a n d in M a d a g a s c a r . Morocco, finally, was a serious bone of contention between France a n d G e r m a n y a n d as a result of this international rivalry preserved, theoretically in any case, a status superior to o r d i n a r y colonies. A third reason for the protectorate status of these three territories was the fact that well-established governments u n d e r O r i e n t a l rulers

INTRODUCTION

7

controlled the areas, that is, rulers and governments which were even recognized as official members of the Family of Nations. Although subordinate in character, they were nonetheless members of that group (87, 192-93). The de jure position of these areas, although strictly observed in the governmental organization, is not in accord with their de facto position. In spite of the circumstances of their acquisition, the protectorates have become integral parts of their respective colonial empires. The general treatment which is accorded them in the framework of the colonial policy is hardly distinguishable from that given to other types of dependencies. Many of the countries now controlling mandates expected to annex them outright. This is particularly true of South Africa which wanted to incorporate South West Africa as a fifth province into the Union of South Africa, 1 but the governments assembled in Versailles in 1919 were, in theory, committed to the Fourteen Points of Wilson, who in his speech before the joint session of Congress of the United States on January 8, 1918, had declared that Free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial aims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interest of the population concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

This declaration, as well as General Smuts's insistence, made possible the establishment of mandates as internationally controlled areas. And still the desire of some states to annex these territories outright was recognized by the expedient of establishing the so-called C mandates, like South West Africa, which was to be "administered under the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory." In spite of the legal status of the mandates, there was a great difference in the application of the mandatory principle. While it has been stated that Great Britain adhered to the letter of the mandate in the case of Tanganyika, the British-mandated territories of Togo and Cameroon, affiliated with the administrations of the Gold Coast and Nigeria respectively, were hardly distinguishable from the rest of the administrative units. Again a greater difference 1 The desire to incorporate South West Africa into the Union is very marked in South Africa today, and in May 1943 the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa adopted unanimously a motion that the Union mandate be terminated and that the territory be incorporated in the Union of South Africa (Cape Times, May 15, 1943).

8

AFRICAN COLONIAL POLICIES

in application of the m a n d a t e principle can be observed when comparing British-, French-, and Belgian-supervised areas. T h e tendency of all mandatories was to regard the mandates as essential parts of their colonial empires, maintaining only different administrative organizations and submitting annual reports to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. Thus, in spite of the special "international" character of Tanganyika, serious attempts were made to effect a "Closer U n i o n " of the British territories in East Africa (32). O n the other hand, the statement that Great Britain was particularly exemplary in executing its m a n datory in Tanganyika, particularly in later years, is not very accurate. T h e management of the m a n d a t e was not of her own volition, but rather a result of political expediency in giving way to G e r m a n pressure in favor of German nationals to be resettled in the former German colony. Thus, while utilizing Tanganyika for her European appeasement policy, the interests of the Native inhabitants, although stoutly defended by and large, were sacrificed when it seemed otherwise opportune; German settlers were allowed to interfere with Native interests when, curiously enough, British settlers were not accorded the same privileges.

9

I N T R O D U C T I O N

S i 3 M

00 s o

cn s o

CNJ m

i-J i i rsi

cn s o o so \o cn

os r^-' s o o o c n t ^ esq cm e g

Tjvo T-H

© T*C J TjSO m Tt'cC yt C\

O N T) c a _o a a u

o cud 0 >N o c o u PH O

1 C b 0o £ o boO o is c co

Tc3 T3 "n c13 c« .fi3

13 o -G

V

| s co 2m ' o ^ . a . j ua ¡Js £ 4 o c B*T3 - P i o «>2 J; 3o «3 M D

u V

m co

pi

o3 co

if cC CN cm" CM in °0, o" o o"

00 in VO C CM ^ T-t

AFRICAN COLONIAL POLICIES

12

S Q

T-l in in vo

in ÇvJ vO° VO

m0 0 to r -T TICO

o v CO O o C v VO^ vo"

vO m in^ i n * V O_ OV vv Oi

m

TF

rr a— \ CM" tO vo"

m

•A À C !• m m T-H cn m co O NO 00 00 O ON « M e n

00 cn

CO

On 00 cn

NO CM CN

On rCO NO r-

CO "^t"

m ' O m M

rO co

ON m \o m ' f l O H m I 00 On i n OCNO^co'CN' o ^ f m m t ^ 00 Ti-

o o m On O NO CM

On m O

ON CO CO r^ t00 t^ CO

CN

ON r-' VO

NO NO "t

O O o

o o o O ON

• 2 •3 « . f - 2 ¡«5 a»

m O

M - O t - O ^ THCK^riO

I o o "tf o o 00 m no

t - l

ON CO CN m ON ,oo g ^WCJ.o-ii i r .aH >. • i < .a-0 « 1 1 . „ •C'o ©•S** S 8 « 3rtftj^ir A-^i 38 k » e E > . «-a SS.SSii s w O „ w QJ a •c ?! oa a o ° Pi 3

oo -oCM

o o CO

£

c 5¿.5 a at «!£•= s • 5o ^ S-o « « 8 % §.2 B s-S OQJflj f.s~ !3 ti - c S - ^ o '•Sab i ly3 ¿SsSgs-S'Sa go-s-S^-g-^-

bo c "3 — 3X1 73 e

< * T3-S « 25 B < S

J3J3 « G " » a bo o i J M s

=

00 00

«

.5 2 V 3 ST ' H i s i s

oD d ™ U M ..2 ; tm flj

2

3'S M

—< w n -a o i HP? "O S u< ^ O

>> >.

5 ^a 8 «3 a .Eg J3 H M^.S

c u.H . o 3.13 " •J e •c « i B" ^ r- O h c ^5?« B S "

o o •>-• O O CO O lO Tf

J3

iroaMc 3firt Hi's ~ oc •9 «.2 Swii o. oC S* 3 « ¡Ox!

• B J? 00 t •, SSciK FI-KK! c>oio-k St) S «.Mom a " l O o o , ssiss&ss-33.ss3 8 * 3 8 9 8 1 McownBieaiin*" D n d n n D flmomllf tJ 'SC oü.5 » «I 3

Î l t ; tO-g l ^ »2 ste S

| S PtlîfinidwtinhS « g t Sc Sn S«E¡¡S s S o«ii Sui.. ïks •3.2 il o -r ** n £ +> 5— c l-, o -m fio g£g «,0 E § § 3 i s i p s « s a " " o-H SS 9sí2 o0..Ccatí—aiK > c 3 5«i< » 673 g ïï Sn «80.2 s u(3 « »S, S'S 3 j> M„.5 oi" -S § g s g™ es c «v

a

¡2 HH tntd U&I0 tda.rn HO

66

AFRICAN COLONIAL POLICIES

1 £

"T3

§S Ig,^ r.« H V»

s S

t-H

S

? s c « P •a c« bo C a

h

bo

LT)

CO

AIMS OF COLONIAL RULE

67

the Government should make it a continual object of their policy to educate the people so that they will be able at the earliest possible moment to elect members to the Legislature. Pending that time, the Government should take every opportunity to nominate Africans or to appoint Africans nominated by Native Councils (67, 2). In the past in granting self-governing status to the Union of South Africa as well as to Southern Rhodesia, the British government has not adhered to those principles which are the stated aims of her colonial policy. While in both of these territories the complete franchise was granted to the European minorities, the Native population was left without legal or political protection and was completely disfranchised. These injustices have long been recognized and the delivery of those two territories into the hands of the European minorities there was a step regretted by the British government but convenient for general political reasons. It is now frankly recognized by the British Colonial Office that such steps should not be repeated and that sufficient checks should be maintained to safeguard the African population against encroachment from European minorities. From our previous discussion it is obvious that the government has not been completely successful. The Labour party clearly recognizes the complications involved in territories "where there is a European minority engaged in trade or agriculture or mining" (67, 3). But it asserts, moreover, that in such territories it is essential that an elected majority in the Legislative Council or "responsible government" should not be introduced unless and until the natives can be given the franchise on the same terms as the Europeans. Otherwise, in effect, political power will simply be handed over to a small European minority. When the time comes at which it is possible to* introduce a franchise for Africans on the same terms as for Europeans and so to establish an elected majority in the Legislature or responsible Government, appropriate measures may have to be taken constitutionally to safeguard the legitimate rights of non-indigenous communities (67, 3). Similar in content is a statement made by Lord Hailey, who as an adviser to the Colonial Office may be regarded as speaking with more official benediction, in which he says concerning the East African territories that the European communities have been largely responsible for much of the economic progress made by the territories. They are numerically far inferior to the native population, but this is still living in tribal conditions, often of a primitive character, and has on that account been excluded from the franchise. There may now be grounds for an extension of some form of franchise to natives in those areas; but it would certainly not make for the social or economic welfare

68

AFRICAN C O L O N I A L P O L I C I E S

of the country if the rapid introduction of self-governing institutions gave to the native population the political dominance over the European elements which its numerical superiority would imply. It would at the same time be contrary to our own tradition if we were to resort to the system of "parallel" rule favoured in the philosophy of the Union of South Africa and thus perpetuate the political control of the European minority. Clearly we must retain official control until the native community has made such progress as will enable it to share political power with the European minority on terms which we can regard as just to both sides (47, 44). I n a n o t h e r connection L o r d H a i l e y referred to t h e s a m e problem of g r a n t i n g self-government to countries w i t h E u r o p e a n minorities by stating: That is an ideal of which all those who are imbued with the traditions of British rule must be ready to assist in the fulfilment. But in the form in which it is commonly embodied in statements of public policy, it seems to say either too much or too little. If it encourages the hope that a unit, small in population and resources can, standing by itself, expect to attain responsible self-government in the sense that the Dominions have attained it, then it is likely to prove illusory. Nor does this statement of policy declare anything of the course to be followed where the normal development of constitutional self-government would bring the interests of a settled European community into variance with those of a native people; it leaves it to be assumed that the decision is somewhat implicit in the doctrine of trusteeship. It says nothing of a possible choice between the forms under which self-government can be attained, leaving it to be assumed that development must inevitably follow the one course which we know ourselves, the achievement of the normal institutions of Parliamentary government (40). I n view of t h e fact t h a t t h e E u r o p e a n m i n o r i t y p r o b l e m is one of t h e most crucial in Africa's colonial institutions, it is important to consider a t length a few of t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s which h a v e been m a d e r e g a r d i n g this p r o b l e m . U n f o r t u n a t e l y most of these statements a r e extremely vague, speaking of self-government in E u r o p e a n - d o m i n a t e d areas in terms only of " a p p r o p r i a t e measu r e s " which o u g h t to b e t a k e n in o r d e r to s a f e g u a r d t h e interests of either t h e one or t h e o t h e r g r o u p . I t a p p e a r s to this w r i t e r t h a t the real issues a r e not faced, in a n y case, a r e n o t realistically viewed, or else they are purposely avoided as too u n p l e a s a n t or, to use a c o m m o n phrase, because t h e p r o b l e m is l o a d e d w i t h dynamite. Nevertheless, t h e facts a r e t h a t East Africa, K e n y a in p a r t i c u l a r , has a E u r o p e a n p o p u l a t i o n w h i c h has f o u n d , in h i g h l a n d areas, farming l a n d which is, as far as c l i m a t e is c o n c e r n e d , well suited for European settlement. T h i s E u r o p e a n g r o u p is d e t e r m i n e d to stay a n d knows

A I M S O F COLONIAL R U L E

69

that in order to maintain its position it must remain politically dominant. Without political control this European minority would soon lose its present economic status. No doubt the struggle for political supremacy on the part of the Europeans is, from their point of view, a matter of life and death. Any attempt—if such should be made—to give even co-ordinated authority to the Native population, which would be in the long run still discriminatory against the Africans, would be unacceptable to the Europeans. Already Kenya settlers have registered their complaints regarding British interference with what they regard as their own local affairs, very much in the same way as South Africans regard their Native policy as being of their concern only. Thus, it is hardly imaginable that within the immediate future Britain will be in a position to change the status of the East African territories. T h e legislative councils will have to remain as they are in order to protect Native interest, and as a result of this deadlock between British policy and the interests of East African settlers the Natives will be deprived of any effective participation in self-government, which, in accord with stated British policy, is their right (see 19, 1 7 9 - 2 0 8 ) . In many sections of Africa, British administration, in order to encourage the establishment of local Native administration and thus foster the development of self-government, has made use of an administrative device, now generally known as "indirect rule." Indirect rule means simply the use of existing Native institutions and organs of government as part of the general system of administration. I n Northern Nigeria, for instance, where Lord Lugard (73) applied the system of indirect rule, many well-functioning Native states, so-called Emirates, were in existence. By becoming incorporated into the British administrative system, the Emirs or other Native rulers were readily available for a co-ordinating supraorganization without involving many of those frictions which would have been unavoidable if a reorganization had been necessary (12).2 After the successful operation of indirect rule in Northern Nigeria, it was gradually introduced into other British territories. I n order to prepare the Africans to participate in their administrative affairs, steps were taken to educate them in the responsibilities of government. However, indirect rule, which normally grants far-reaching authority to the traditional tribal chief and which in some instances even endeavors to resurrect a centralized tribal authority, does not 2 Indirect rule had been used previously in other colonial areas such as India and the Netherlands East Indies, although Lord Lugard should be credited with having created the theoretical foundation for its practical application.

70

A F R I C A N C O L O N I A L POLICIES

necessarily further the policy of responsible direct self-government. Critics of this system have asserted that it only serves to perpetuate or to keep artificially alive an African feudalism often by alien rulers. Once a great deal of authority is granted to the traditional aristocracy, an aristocracy which is frequently opposed to the introduction of a government based on social justice for all, it will continue to exercise influences which are difficult to harmonize with any development towards self-government. The rulers thus favored by the system of indirect rule jealously guard their position which a democratization of the administration would be certain to jeopardize, Therefore, it is inherent in this system that those participating in the administration oppose progress and are not infrequently stout defenders of the status quo. Indirect rule often permits the British official to stay in the background and influence from there the Native affairs. The majority of educated Africans regard the system of indirect rule as a veiled attempt at "keeping the Africans in their place," and Rattray, who had a great deal of opportunity to observe this system in the Gold Coast, believes that it would develop into a kind of "benevolent autocracy" (97, 23). Therefore, the recent statement of the Labour party concerning indirect rule is very much to the point. While endorsing indirect rule as a system with the help of which Africans may be trained in self-government, it opposes this system if the aim of self-government is not assured. Authoritarianism . . . is no more attractive when exercised by Chiefs or Emirs in Africa than by Fuehrers or Duces in Europe, and indirect rule should not be used as an excuse for maintaining autocratic tribal rulers and for preventing the education and development of Africans so that they can stand by themselves in the political and economic world which Europe is imposing upon them. Indirect rule should be treated merely as a form of local government, as a method of integrating native institutions into the general government and administration, and where these institutions are undemocratic, steps must be taken to introduce into them the principles and practice of democracy (