A Kenyan riot police officer repeatedly kicked a protester who lay in the street after tripping while trying to flee during a protest in downtown Nairobi, Kenya |
By Jonathan Fisher and Nic Cheeseman
The
impact of colonial rule on sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the subject of
intense debate and controversy. Barely a year goes by in the UK without a
public figure igniting a furore by arguing that colonialism somehow benefited the people it
oppressed.
But our new book, “Authoritarian Africa: Repression,
Resistance, and the Power of Ideas”, paints a very different picture. We
re-evaluate the political legacy of colonialism and find that it had a profound
impact on African political systems.
The colonial era strengthened the power of “Big Men” – powerful local leaders –
over their communities. This undermined pre-existing checks and balances. In this
way the colonial era helped institutionalise repressive forms of government.
At the same time colonial rule also ensured that
post-colonial leaders would face a major struggle to assert their authority. It
did this by creating states with limited capacity to provide services and
police their own territories.
The unstable authoritarian pathway that so many
states followed after colonial rule was no accident. It was facilitated by the
ways in which European empires undermined democratic elements within African
societies.
Understanding the deeper impact of colonial rule
is, therefore, important. Not only to give us a better sense of history, but
also because it helps to contextualise the development of African politics ever
since.
Prior to colonial rule, many – though not all –
African societies lived in relatively small groupings that were much smaller
than modern, centralised states. In some cases, these societies didn’t
recognise a strong central authority figure at all. This put
limits on the extent to which power could be abused. The low population density
meant that communities might move to another area if a ruler was excessively
exploitative.
These systems weren’t necessarily democracies. Power
was often dominated by older, wealthier men. But, most were a long way from
being centralised political systems capable of mass repression.
Colonial rule fundamentally changed this picture in
two ways.
First, it created clearly demarcated national boundaries
and a central authority structure, along with a more extensive bureaucracy and
security forces. Thus, post-colonial presidents enjoyed the potential to wield
power over a vast territory and diverse group of communities.
Uganda police brutality |
Second, colonial governments typically lacked
enough officials to effectively run their territories. To maintain political
stability they therefore collaborated with – or subordinated – existing leaders
and power structures. In many cases, this involved funding and arming willing collaborators
to enable them to exert greater control over their communities. These leaders
were expected to manage their communities and prevent a rebellion against
colonial rule.
It was more efficient for colonial governments to
engage with fewer leaders who could deliver the support of a greater number of
people. In addition, many colonial officials falsely assumed that Africans
lived in tribal kingdoms. As a result, the process concentrated power in the
hands of a relatively small number of “Big Men” and entrenched ethnic identities.
Some African communities resisted the imposition of
what they saw as illegitimate authority structures. In others, political
entrepreneurs gave colonial regimes what they wanted in a bid to accumulate
greater power. But, in both cases, the colonial era disempowered its “subjects.
It also laid the foundations for politics in many
African states to become dominated by a struggle for power between the leaders
of different communities.
European powers also handed over a poisoned chalice
at independence when it came to democratic institutions. Colonial governments
had done little to create the conditions under which democratic politics could
take hold and thrive. In some cases they even refused to hold elections until
the eve of independence. Instead, they systematically sought to deny Africans
their political and economic rights, and stymie the emergence of popular
nationalist parties.
This typically involved highly repressive laws. These
enabled governments to censor the media, ban public meetings, and detain
political leaders on flimsy charges. When colonial regimes came under threat,
their default response was invariably intimidation and violence.
All of these policies were enacted by states that
were extremely centralised and in which the colonial governor wielded vast
power.
In a number of countries –- including Kenya and Nigeria –- colonial
governments even attempted to manipulate elections to ensure that their allies
would emerge victorious. The first rigged elections held on the continent were
those organised by Britain and France.
If colonial governments taught aspiring political
elite anything, it was how to use co-option and coercion to demobilise popular
movements. Indeed, many African governments have restricted the basic freedoms
of their citizens by using colonial era legislation still on the statute books.
Just a few years ago, for example, five radio
journalists were arrested in Zambia for allegedly calling a government
politician "useless” under Section 179 of the penal code. The code was
first introduced under British colonial rule.
African police against fellow citizens |
This complex colonial inheritance gave rise to a
set of governments characterised by fragile authoritarianism.
On the one hand, the authoritarian structures
fostered under colonialism meant that democratic constitutions were quickly
undermined after independence. On the other, the social and political impact of
colonial rule made it more difficult for governments to assert control.
This tension led to the emergence of a set of
political systems that typically struggled to establish a sustainable
alternative to democratic rule.
The challenges that post-colonial leaders faced
were particularly difficult because they were multifaceted. There was the
threat posed to them by rival Big Men. And there was also the fact that these
leaders had inherited states that lacked
an effective infrastructure or public services. They also inherited
economies that were designed to extract value rather than create mass
employment.
Most African governments lacked
the funds needed to make up for this deficit. This was made worse by the fact
that the early 1970s saw a period of economic decline. As a result,
building effective totalitarian regimes –- in which the
state uses repression and control over information to regulate all aspects of
life –- was often all but impossible.
In this sense, post-colonial states reproduced a
core feature of colonial rule: in the absence of a strong state, maintaining
political stability depended on a combination of coercion and co-option.
Leaders who understood the importance of this balancing act could stay in power
for decades. Those who did not could be toppled in weeks.
Of course there is much more to Africa than fragile
authoritarianism. And the way in which these legacies played out was not
uniform. It was shaped by variations in the colonial power and the different
strategies that the Belgian, British, French, and Portuguese deployed.
The decisions of African leaders and the nature of
the nationalist movement that fought for independence were also of great
importance. For example, in two countries –- Botswana and Mauritius –- they
enabled multiparty democracy to be built and maintained after independence.
But in many ways these exceptions prove the rule.
On the whole, colonialism reinforced the authoritarian elements within African
societies while undermining the elements of inclusion and accountability that
had previously balanced them out. The cumulative impact of these changes made
it more difficult for African countries to forge democratic futures.
When viewed in this light, it is clear that there
is little reason for European nations to be proud of their empires.
No comments:
Post a Comment