British Indirect Rule in Ghana, Kenya and S. Africa - Essay Example

One of the basic principles of the British Rule in the colonies across the world - Anglophone colonialism - has been the indirect rule and the British worked with traditional leaders as a way of indirect rule in African countries such as Ghana, Kenya and South Africa. The classic example of the indirect rule by the British has been that of India where they ruled the people through the Raj. In the same way, the British Rule in the African colonies worked out mainly though the chiefs, kings and councils. As part of the strategy of colonialism, the British Rule supported chiefs in the African colonies top down (not democratic which would be bottom up) and it was authoritarian in nature. This authoritarian nature of the indirect rule by the British often made chiefs in Africa abuse power in a way that was never possible in a traditional system and there was no innovation or conservation of traditional elements in the indirect rule. Significantly, a "type of indirect governance was found in early toeholds in West Africa, notably Cape Coast Colony in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) These colonies had Legislative Councils with nominated, non-official members who regarded themselves as a loyal opposition, as well as newspapers critical of governmentYet another version of Indirect Rule developed with respect to the loosely organized, so called stateless peoples of Southern Nigeria, Kenya, or Tanganyika, whose political institutions had either remained rudimentary or been destroyed by European military action. Here 'foreigners' or relatively unimportant individuals (such as the warrant chiefs in East Africa) were imported or raised above their former stations." (Louis, Brown, Low, and Canny 1999 P. 239). In a reflective analysis of the 'indirect rule' by the British in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa, one comes to realize that it had major consequences in the development of various aspects of these countries, as it indirectly promoted ethnicity, radicalized nationalist leaders and structured the post-colonial institutions of government in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa. The 'indirect rule' by the British in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa had a major impact on the nationalization process of these nations, as it indirectly promoted ethnicity. One of the major consequences of the 'indirect rule' by the British in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa was the establishment of traditional rulers in these countries who wanted to conserve culture and tradition. The emphasis on traditional ruler vs. educated elite had an important impact on the nationalization process of these nations. In a profound analysis interrogating the reasons for the failure of African nationalism in the post-independent period, which is a challenging task, the impact of 'indirect rule' of the British on ethnicity and nationalism of the African countries becomes palpable. Significantly, the workings of imperialism in West Africa indisputably enhanced social cleavages between rural and urban classes, the elite and the masses, and made it difficult to form bonds that would survive the immediate transition to independence. While the manipulation of the communist threat turned aside the just grievances of the masses, cultivation of the moderate, bourgeois elite secured a constant base for Western financial interests. "The manipulation of ethnicity and 'tradition' under colonial rule also had important consequences. As the masses had been excluded from modernity under indirect rule, the nationalist intelligentsia appeared to ethnic as well as pan-African consciousness in building nationalist movements. The attraction of ethnic identity was that it cut across class lines and prioritized culture and 'traditional values' in a time of change. Ethnicityis dynamic, not static, and thus may also be viewed as 'another form of popular consciousness' which emerged with the political struggles against colonialism." (Bush, 1999, P. 125-6). However, according to the progressive imperialists, such 'ethnic consciousness' or 'tribalism' was regressive and divisive. Thus, the colonial experts downplayed the importance of ethnic consciousness and the force of African culture in their management of the transition to self-rule. In a reflective analysis of the process of gaining ethnicity in the countries of Ghana, Kenya and South Africa, one realizes the role of the 'indirect rule' by the British in this process. Another major consequence of the 'indirect rule' by the British in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa was that it radicalized nationalist leaders. Indirect rule by the British was the name given to the use of traditional chiefs as administrative intermediaries in Britain's African empire. It was devised in the first decade of the twentieth century to facilitate the administration of the conquered lands in Africa. "By the late colonial period, many African chiefs had developed interest in the colonial status quo, which often put them at odds with the nationalist leaders who were campaigning for self-government and independence From the nationalist perspective, indirect rule was an attempt to restrict African political awareness to the tribal level in order to prevent development of territorial consciousness. While some nationalist leaders rose from the chiefly class and while most treated traditional authorities with respect, there was little chance that chiefly power would continue in the age of modern, independent nation states." (Olson and Shadle, 1996, P. 169-70). Thus, a reflective analysis of the 'indirect rule' by the British in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa confirms that there are similarities and differences in Anglophone colonialism with regard to each case. These similarities and differences in Anglophone colonialism do not perfectly correspond to the theories because of the difference in ethnicities, people, etc. Although similar patterns were used for the 'indirect rule' by the British in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa, they were not uniform in nature. Thus, although Kenya had many settlers, it was much less than that of South Africa, whose history parallels American history. In 1903, British whites were encouraged to settle in Kenya and it is called a settler colony. Ghana is not a settler colony of the British and the presence or absence of a large white presence makes the difference with regard to settler colony. The British settlers in Kenya ended up being about 3000 farmers and they settled on 2.6 million hectares of Kenya's best land. In their effort to improve their culture, the nationalist leaders, among them Kikuyu, began a movement to try to establish independent schools because the missionary schools were attacking their cultures. In these schools, they concentrated to teach ethnic values instead of Western education which was laced with anti Kenya propaganda. In conclusion, a profound analysis of the 'indirect rule' by the British in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa brings out the major consequences of this strategy of the colonizers. Thus, the 'indirect rule' by the British in these countries promoted ethnicity, radicalized nationalist leaders and structured the post-colonial institutions of government in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa. There are important differences, as well as similarities, between settler and non-settler colonies. Bibliography Bush, Barbara. 1999. Imperialism, race, and resistance: Africa and Britain, 1919-1945. London: Routledge. P. 125-6. Louis, William Roger., Brown, Judith M., Low, Alaine M. and Canny, Nicholas P. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: The twentieth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 239. Olson, James Stuart and Shadle, Robert. 1996. Historical dictionary of the British Empire. Vol. 1. Greenwood Publishing Group. P. 169-70. Read More