The British Empire - Not Merely Undemocratic - Essay Example

THE BRITISH EMPIRE WAS NOT MERELY UNDEMOCRATIC, IT WAS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC... DISCUSS By of the of the of the School City, State 21 May 2015 Introduction The state of democracy that the British and the western world enjoyed today was the effect of the long struggle to change inequalities and social differences perpetuated by the early British Empire. The Empire was renowned for its historically gross undemocratic character used to widen the British control over vast territories. It was never liberal and exercised limited or no democracy. It was initiated by the few greedy for power individuals seeking capitalists’ gains at the expense of vulnerable communities and land. Beginning closer at Scotland and Wales, the empire sought to conquer territories for their thirst of power and exploitations of resources to aid their course. The empire was characterized by opposition of humans’ equality ideas, instead allowing social stratification of the society based on power and status, immersed in racism that facilitated slavery and oppression of the majority poor and blacks, and bestowed responsibilities and power to the elites to lead on the behalf of the empire. From its imperial history, Kwateng states that the “British empire was underpinned by anarchic individualism and paternalism,” but also with haphazard policy making improvised by the few men with different ideologies of administration and government (2011, p.7). It was authoritative and oppressive to most communities yet managed to dominantly rule and maintain order and control to its colonies. Its strategies and activities across the world did yield both goods and wrongs, but exposed its lack of liberalism and support for democracy in numerous ways. American push for independence and democracy from the British During the reign of King George in England and his empire in the greater North America, the colonies, slaves and immigrant challenged the centred power British rule. Britain had garnered too much power for its crown and intended to maintain its control over the American natives without fair representations. Since British conquer into the American colonies, the latter though the majority over the small population of the crown states were politically and economically pressured by the empire. One, they were required to pay heavy taxes and duties to the empire for their trade activities, but went unrepresented in parliament. British people though taxed were represented in the parliament, implying an injustice was taking place. Second, the British had taken away the some of the natives’ American lands in eastern parts of great lakes, yet continued to rule the colonies. Finally, it imposed numerous restrictions in its colonies that a good number of natives and slaves saw fit to migrate into Canada. Americans were driven by the political and social unresponsiveness of the British to meet their demands and began contesting against the empire. The crown rejection of American colonies representation in parliament and its approval of Canada’s self-rule fuelled American’s struggle for fair rule, treatment and equality. Paine pamphlet told of the inequalities projected between the British rule as tyrannical (through the king and his peers) and his subjects (colonies) and proposed for American struggle for independence and democracy in order to govern itself (1975). It goes without doubt that after denial of American’s parliamentary representation, self-rule, continued slavery and Boston’s massacre (occurred when the British soldiers’ and colonist clash), democracy was too expensive for British Empire to offer. The American Revolution marked aggressive demand for this change to the people. Imposition of British Empire in Africa and its inequality a. Inequality in rule to maintain superiority The British colonial policies in the African colonies demonstrated the indifference in equality principle between them and the native people. Equality is an associated socio-political element that supports democratization process. It remains central in delivery of justice and freedom both in the traditional and modern societies. When the British Empire expanded its territories into the African colonies, it initiated and implemented policies failed to promote equality in treatment and rule over the African tribes. Comparing the British with the French imperialism, the former is known to have ruled by association while the latter by assimilation, which explained the emergent inequality, issues in Brits colonies (Bleich 2005). To bring the process of civilization in the African continent, the two colonies used the two different acculturation strategies. The French assimilation plan attempted to absorb the African cultures and ways of life into the dominant culture of the colony. As a result the French empire managed to extend their customs and practices to the African colonies, but in turn eroded their superiority since their strategy affirmed equality. The British Empire on the other hand preferred to retain relations on the grounds of association, with limited cultural diffusion which implied their preserved superiority and minimal opportunities of equality. Through practiced association, the British Empire retained its dominion over the conquered, essentially empowering to exploit the deemed inferior and uncivilized communities. b. Inequality in spreading of education One of the applauded blessings of the British imperialism is the spread of education in the third world countries. This however came at a cost of division and social stratification of the equally organized tribal and native communities. In the case of Africa, education was considered was initially offered partially to the selective few in the communities. Education was vitals in the spread of Christianity and civilization to the African colonies. In contrast to the French empire, the British fist strategy was to offer education to a restricted number rather than inclusive. It targeted the elites’ children in the conquered territories and gave them education, while others were left out. Smith points out the changing beliefs of colonial governors in the 1900 in Cape Town from limiting education to African chiefs children (2008). Similarly, the British education system showed greater education interest for boys than girls. For example, British colonialism in Africa did lead to establishment of several boys’ schools and training centres before allowing girls into the system. Inequality even stretched further to establish different schools for the elites (white settles, chiefs and prominent black) and slave/squatters children. This showed that the male and elites’ children benefitted from the early British education than the poor and females. It is believed the courtesy was extended to the elite rulers of the tribes/communities to cooperatively rule with the British government, in attempt to progressively prevent rebellion by the communities. In some colonies they strictly dictated what was taught in schools and even limited teaching of African cultures and history. c. British oppressive land policies and suppression of freedom movement The British Empire expanded numerous southern and Northern America territories during the 17, 18 and 19 centuries. Today, most of these colonies enjoy certain benefits emerging from the earlier British invasion. They have attained democracy after years of British oppressive rule in their land. However, the enjoyed democracy was the result of their forefathers struggles to free them from the authoritative empire from a foreign land. The British practiced an indirect rule on African countries, which allowed the native leaders to continue ruling over their communities as representatives of the Crown of Majesty the Queen. These leaders as chiefs and kings of the native kingdoms could be replaced if they defied the Crown and its rule. Their responsibilities entailed collection of taxes among other duties for the prosperity of the British Empire. Other oppressive policies entailed legitimization of systematic land dispositions of the blacks, squatters and forced labour for the large firms grabbed by the British colony. These oppressive policies were highly apparent in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria in Western Africa. The natives were denied the freedom to exercise their rights (e.g., ownership of land and living outside reserves) in their own land. According to Kamalu, when the British conquered Kenya, they appropriated all the fallow lands of the natives, changed their system of land use, the white settlers generously awarded fertile lands on the highlands, pushed most natives into squatters on their land, and introduced hut and poll taxes to force the farming practicing communities into poor waged labour (2007, p.143). Asquith reiterates the dictatorial imposition of taxation on the British self-governing colonies, which failed eventually (1907). South Africa, under Native land act of 1913, the empire prohibited Africans from purchasing or leasing land in 93 percent of the native land (left for the whites ownership), and South African Act of 1909 excluded from political participation among others (sahistory.org.za, nod). Burdened by such oppression and exploitation in their lands, Africans began sought to redeem their lands, freedom and rights. This posed a threat to the superiority, rule and economical gains of the British Empire from the colonies. Unwilling to allow freedom and independence of the Africans, the British government send troops to suppress the rebellion, leading to thousands of deaths and injuries to freedom fighters for democracy. The Mau Mau of Kenya and Apartheid of South Africa are two of the major uprising movements that rebelled and fought the British imperialists to receive independence and democracy in their land. The British colony did not recognize the freedom of the African rights, which caused Africans uprisings until they regained power from the Crown. Women exclusion under British Empire Women were historically not treated as equals to male partners in the British Empire. Beginning with Britain itself before expansion into Wales and Scotland, British women had limited rights and opportunities to serve in the public and political ranks. During the Victorian era, women in Britain and its colonies thrived in restricted domains of work. Normally the woman’s roles were limited to domestic chores (weaning children, family responsibilities, house activities) and only deemed selective tasks as education and nursing. Although the empire was led by a queen that steered expansion of British industry, women were far from achieving equal rights to men in economic and political participation. Women had struggled to acquire their rights to vote in the British electorates with failure. With such rights only reserved for men, women felt oppressed and progressively pushed full recognition through equal rights to vote. According to Georges, “six times, between 1886 and 1911, bills on women’s suffrage in Britain never got beyond second readings in the commons despite all the demonstrations in the period” (2011, p. 215). It’s right to state that Britain itself was not close to liberal on issues of gender equality and rights. Women also lacked equal rights as men in ownership of property, unless they met marital status. Not even the married women could own property until the passage of the bill in the late 1900s. Yeboah claims that Victorians concepts facilitated the exclusion of women from the public domain and men to become major political agents, while the “colonial legal system prevented women’s possession of land and erosion of political position for women as a far as Africa” (2008, p. 21). India inherited the gendered exclusion through disenfranchisement policy of the British rule, stripping both Indian and British women off their voting rights. In real sense, British women of India and Indian women as imperial and national citizens respectively, were undermined by the imperial laws attitude that favoured their exclusion. They only came to achieve the full rights of citizenship in the 20th century after decades of inequality. Treatment of India under British rule a. Inequality among elites and civilians The minority British in India had conquered their land and instituted the crowns rule among the uncivilized Indian population. It took administration and implemented its political and economic policies, which in the long run exploited the Indians. The British arrival in India openly demonstrated their common strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ to impose their tyranny among the native regimes. The British in most occasions deployed their armies against inflexible rulers and rebellion. According to Levine “the ‘Permanent Settlement’ engineered by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 created a new landowning class of local wealthy Indians who had functioned previously as tax collectors, while the ordinary farmers and agricultural labourers were forced to pay substantial land taxes” (2007, p. 66). Indians faced much harsh taxation policies to increase farming revenue during the British rule. The set colony administration, officials and army operating within India created further expenses which the Indians had to meet. Much of their wealth was spent in payment and maintenance of the crown offices and officials in India. b. Wealth transfer to British The external rule of British government in Indian led to transfer of most Indian wealth to the Crown state without ever returning adequate material value. The British Empire spread in India from an English East India company that was controlled by the British. The company was involved in trading between India and British government. After the Plassey battle, the opportunistic British had consolidated power to control the areas, and its complete control of the trade and economy. Towards the end of the 18th century, the company had transformed into a private organization and equipped for rule with supporting judiciary staff, capable of executing policies besides the trading privileges it retained (Shani, 2006, p. 20). The governance of India eventually became a shared enterprise by the public and private organization which had extended its territories into Bengal amongst. The effect of this was establishment and strengthening of the crown rule over the Indians, which served best in prospering trade to the colony. The British had made massive investment in India for construction of and development to support the economic interests between India and the Empire. The empire used unfair economic policies that left Indian working to support the British expansion of the empire and wealth accumulation over years. Taxation policies overburdened the society while it the empire channelled the tax benefits to the Crown. Indians saw massive exports of goods (Cotton, silk and Tea) to the British in payments of their debts and accrued costs leaving Indian economy barely on poverty more than a century later. Naoroji criticizes the British economic policies introduced in India for failure to fulfil the promised equality as envisioned in the Act of 1833; the expose British self-interests in transfer of wealth to the empire and the state of distraction it left India in (1917). Their policies and rule trapped the Indian nationals to re-generative wealth on behalf of the foreign empire and stood between the Indian attainment of self-rule for decades before its down fall driven by Swadeshi movement and Gandhi momentum besides. Anti-democracy through slavery Colonies did enjoy their freedom and rights in their natives’ lands before the British introduced western slavery policy. Slavery was not a new concept in the Europe, and British governments had historical records of sending convicts into foreign lands. Slavery was a prominent inhibition of democracy among the black communities from the South. Britain and its western colonies reputably relied on slavery business to facilitate their economic progress. Like other colonial invaders in new territories, British Empire expanded into slave trade business from the colonies to western world. Associated with slave traders as John Hawkins of England in the mid-1500s, the British purchased slaves in Africa and sold them in the far lands of Northern America and across Europe (nationalarchives.gov.uk, n.d.). Targets were offenders, young women and men captured, who were separated from their families, and sold cheaply to the traders. The slaves were treated as commodities worth great value to the crown. Upon sale they became property of their masters, whom would use them transportation, business and farm workers in the extensive plantations of the white. Britain was dominant in the African slavery after the Portuguese and might have facilitated movement of the millions of slaves into the North. The worst inhumanity ever committed by the crown was passage of Acts that legalized slave trade in the colonies. These endangered the lives of the Africans at the risk of slavery, white traders’ brutality and violence against the blacks. Some of the purchased slave contracted chronic diseases and died during the voyage or shortly after destinations. At most accounts slaves were not treated as equal humans to the white, but as inferior, with minimal rights and placed at the mercy of their masters for punishment (entailing beatings and torture) (Equiano, 1995). They lived in poor conditions and were subjects to cruelty of their masters and were not allowed to own property. Some became possessions for life and not protected by any institutions, not even the Catholic Church. Their dire situation promoted by crown’s slavery policies indicated the empire’s oppression of their freedoms. Freedom came at a cost normally after long period of labour service to their masters, if unable to purchase their freedom. Racial segregation under British imperialism British imperialism was known to have introduced racial divisions within peaceful coexisting natives of different races and tribes. One of it stem from the ‘white and black/negro’ social construction to describe the superior and inferior population. Indentured servitude and slavery did also highly contribute to the racial segregation under the British Empire, where almost entirely all slaves came from Africa compared to other regions. Blacks were punished for having affairs or bearing children with their white masters, but ignored the white partners’ contribution to the offence. The state of Virginia among other British colonies enacted miscegenation laws prohibited marriage between races (specifically targeting whites and blacks/slaves), in the claim of removal of the white partner from the dominion (loc.gov, n.d.). Prospered movements as the Apartheid in SA against the minority white rulers facilitated racial segregation, while most British land policies in the African countries led to tribal and racial segregation. Distinct communities had their own reserves and squatters, while the settles occupied specific locations. Conclusion The British Empire was an anti-democratic system featured by reduced rights of the colonies slaves, oppressive policies of trade and political affairs. Colonialism of neighbourhood regions of Wales, Scotland, North America, the far India and African territories was in itself undemocratic, composed of a minority coercive rule over massive populations and territories. The slavery trade and indentured slavery from the south into Europe and North America facilitate room for the minority freedom and exercise of their rights. Slaves were equated to commodities of possession by their masters whom violated their rights as humans and exploited for economic gains. The British and its colonies promoted racial segregation between the blacks and whites by denying the former equal rights as their English masters through slavery and land policies. Inequality often a basic for democracy was apparent during the Victorian era through women disenfranchisement in Britain, the empires favouritism of elites’ children and boys’ education over girls, and the British superiority over the colonies. References Asquith, H., 1907. ‘Address to the Colonial Conference of 1907’ in Minutes of Proceedings of the Colonial Conference, 1907, p. 306. Bleich, E., 2005. The Legacies of History? Colonization and Immigrant Integration in Britain and France. Theory and Society vol 34, no. 2, pp. 171-195. [online] Available at:[Accessed 21 May 2015] Equiano, O., 1995. [1789] The Interesting Narrative And Other Writings (ed. V. Carretta), New York, Penguin Books, pp. 104–9, 110,171–2. Georges, R. P., 2011.What Christ Did for Women. London: Xlibris Publishing Company. Kamalu, C., 2007. The Little African History Book - Black Africa from the Origins of Humanity to the Assassination of Lumumba and the turn of the 20th Century. London: Orisa Press Kwarteng, K., 2010. Ghosts of Empire: Britain’s Legacies in the Modern World. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Levine, P., 2007. The British Empire: Sunrise to sunset. Person Education Limited. British Library Cataloging. ISBN: 978-0-582-47281-5. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2015] List of Laws on Land Disposition and Segregation. n.d. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2015] Naraoji, D., 1917. ‘The Condition of India’, in Speeches and Writings of Dadabhai Naoroji, Madras, G.A. Nateson, pp. 226–33. Paine, T., 1975. [10 January 1776] ‘Common Sense’ in Jack P. Greene (ed.) Colonies to Nation, 1763–1789. A Documentary History of the American Revolution, New York, W.W. Norton and Company, pp. 270–283. Shani, G. 2006. Empire, Liberalism and the Rule of Colonial Difference: Colonial Govern mentality in South Asia. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, Vol.5, pp. 19-36. [online] Available at:[Accessed 21 May 2015] Slavery and Indentured Servant. n.d. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2015] Smith, B.G., 2008. The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Women in World History: 4 Volume Set. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. The National Archives: Britain and Slave Trade, n.d. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2015] Yeboah, M.A., 2008.Gender and Livelihoods: Mapping the Economic Strategies of Porters in Accra Ghana. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest. Read More