There
is no doubt that colonialism produced in Africa consequences far beyond the
period when alien rule was terminated. Those impacts are so deep, and the
consequences so eroding on the social fabric of the African society that it is
now convenient to label such as colonial legacy or heritage. Colonialism may
not have completely transformed African society and people but it did not
exactly leave Africa the manner it met it.
Background to the Problems and Legacies
It
is only logical that before we can reasonably discuss the problems and legacies
of colonialism that we settle or agree on a point of departure. It seems
convenient that we commence from the period of independence, using 1960,
African year of independence, as a base year. What we now call colonial legacy
took the colonial powers more than a century to plant and nurture; it was only
when the forces of nationalism made colonial business a more risky enterprise
that colonial powers took steps to firmly root the crumbing pillars of alien
rule in the consciousness of the African people. What most people now refer to
as the history of colonialism is the drama of the Europeans who were eager to
come to
Africa
but were reluctant to leave. But the real history of colonialism did not stop
or terminate in 1960, or any other year, but its unbroken chain continued after
wards, and have been sustained in many forms as the colonial heritage. Close to
half a century after “Africa year”, there is no denying the fact that the
influence of colonialism on Africa remains crippling. In the post-colonial era
African leaders could not sustain the euphoria of anti-colonial colonialism ,
and failed to convert it into a rallying platform to build a nation out of
colonially created artificial boundaries.
Why
this was so can be explained from the factor of colonialism which transformed
Africa from a purely traditional, to a quasi-modern societies, in which
traditional authority exercised by chiefs was displaced, and replaced with
charismatic, or achievement oriented legitimacy, claimed by educated
nationalists; who eventually took over from the Europeans. But history has
shown that charismatic legitimacy tends to emerge during period of national crisis,
which is comparable to the period of African struggle for independence.
However, this created a major challenge for the immediate post-colonial era due
to the failure of African leaders to sustain the nationalist euphoria and
transform it into an adhesive or sinew to forge a new national identity.
The
colonial powers were deliberately hesitant, partial and reluctant to prepare
African colonies because of the need to preserve and safeguard their interest.
What the skewed negotiation for independence between the Africans and the
Europeans produced was a post-colonial state, with over developed bureaucracy
relative to other political institutions. This distorted state structure, gave
birth to new brands of coercive organs like the police and military which though
served colonialism so well, but was not suitable for Africa (Smith 2003).
Political
Legacy
When
the former colonies emerged as independent states, they found themselves
composed of varieties of tribes, social structures and cultures that were
emotionally distant from one another. By extension postcolonial states were
weak political entities, invested with political independence but lacked the
muscles to assert their sovereignty. These states were new to independence and
power, but were anxious to prove the legitimacy of their national interests.
Forging these diverse people into a single nation was not easy because it
required more than geographic proximity. The citizens of these states were
naturally oriented almost entirely towards their sub-national groups and were loosely
identified with their new country or its government. More often than not, an
African country becomes an independent state without a nation to provide a
foundation. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, has within its borders at
least ten major ethnic groups, among which the pull of centrifugal forces led
to a civil war in the 60s, and is still potent today.
This
failure of groups within states in Africa to pull together is also due to the
fragmenting impact of colonialism . Berman (1984) noted that the policy of
“divide and rule” “obstructed the development of alignments on a national scale
by encouraging identification with ethnicity and locality. He argues that this
factor persisted into the post-colonial period and became a major source of
“destabilizing political conflict”. Also,
African
states have grafted the British parliamentary and the American inspired
presidential systems into their political structures, but it has not produced
comparable success. This reason for the failures is that Africa has
uncritically embraced what is foreign irrespective of whether it is suitable
for African political climate.
Economic
Legacy
Since
we have largely identified colonialism with the economic interests of the
Europeans, it is therefore not a surprise that its impact is more visible here.
Colonialism created a dual economy in Africa, two economic systems co-existed within
the society, but one was disarticulated, or not connected with the other: the
village subsistence economy which served local needs, and the modern economy
which fed the needs of international commerce.
This
has resulted in contemporary African economy, according to Aluko into “an
inconsistent combination of circumstances” of African states not producing what
they consume and not consuming what they produce. Cash crop-based,
mono-cultural economies, foreign orientation and dependence and fluctuations as
well as vulnerabilities constitute the essence of national economies. The loss
of control of production to foreigners, the external orientation of the economy
and the manipulations of the international economic system has contributed to the
destruction of Africa’s pre-colonial self-reliance.
In
pursuit of its economic interest colonialism fused political and economic
relationship into one. In his comparative studies of African as the source of
economic development, which was later transformed by African leaders into arena
for managing and manipulating political (class) conflict. This view is close to
the idea of a state as a parasite that extracts resources from society not for
purposes of social reproduction, but to sustain the political elite. The
mercantilist ethic inherent in colonialism also encouraged the introduction of
commercial, together with a money economy. Western trade brought with it the
profit motive, which is the basic goal of the capitalist system, encouraged the
idea of competition, which fostered individualism, but destroyed the classless nature
of African society. Among the Ibos in Nigeria and Creoles in Sierra Leone,
African merchant elite emerged and this transformation led to a new commercial
practice distinct from what existed in the traditional African societies.
colonialism also introduced a modern system of taxation. Unlike in the past when
traditional rulers irregularly merely collected tributes, taxation under
colonial rule was standardized, and based on known assessment criteria. Though
this policy was largely successful, it was violently resisted in the famous
1929 Aba riots of Eastern Nigeria and the 1854 hut tax riots in Sierra Leone.
The
failure of tax policy in Africa, even in the post-colonial era, is due to the
inability of many citizens to identify with state, and the definition of their relationship
with government in terms of what they receive from, rather than what they
contribute to it. Peter Ekeh (1975) explained that colonialism has created two
separate public in political life in Africa:
(a)
Amoral civil public from which one expects benefits but which is not important in
the definition of duties.
(b)
Amoral primordial public, defined in terms of one’s ethnic groups, to which
relationships are phrased in terms of duty.
What
has worsened economic woes in Africa today is that most citizens extract resources
from the state to serve the needs of their primordial groups; a carryover of
colonial ethos.
Another
legacy of foreign rule is that it deliberately pursued a policy of uneven
development in the colonies. Though the policy was deemed consistent to the
dictates of colonialism , its enduring impacts are still common place in Africa
today. In Nigeria and Ghana, the South developed at a pace faster than the
North.
In
Sierra Leone the Aborigines were distinct from the returnees; while in
Rhodesia, Africans lived in fears of perpetual white minority rule. This uneven
and separate development and treatment engendered permanent mutual suspicions among
the groups, encouraged the adoption of ethnic quota or balancing devise, and
has complicated nation building efforts.
Socio-Cultural
Legacy
A
complete true historical account of colonialism is that the European wars of
conquest dislocated and disintegrated African political institutions economic
structures and social systems, and super-imposed their own. Britain not only
welded different ethnic groups to make Nigeria a “geographic expression” but
also coined, and gave the country a name. This is a common heritage for most
African states except for a few like Ghana (formerly Gold Coast), Burkina Faso
(formerly Upper Volta), Congo, which once changed to Zaire, before it reverted;
Rhodesia, which split into Zambia and Zimbabwe, with the latter’s capital,
changing from Salisbury to Harare, among others. But these obviously harmless,
but symbolic changes have not in any significant ways altered European cultural
penetration of Africa. One, Europeans imposed their different languages on the
colonies, which eventually became the official language or lingua franca of
these countries after independence. Consequently rather than use Yoruba,
Swahili or Fanti to communicate, English, French or Portuguese are now being
employed today as language of wider reach in Africa, even among inhabitants of the
same country.
Two,
colonial rule also selectively introduced educational opportunities, and
unevenly promoted the adoption of Western culture within the same state. The
effect is that at micro and macro levels, Africa remains divided. In the
coaster areas where Western influence is understandably dominant, what we have
are strong imitations or mimicry of western way of lives, but in the
hinterlands where alien penetrations are restricted Western influence is
limited, because it is being resisted. Colonial education itself was limited,
and not oriented to serve the developmental aspirations, but to produce clerks
and interpreters, who served the needs of colonial administration. According to
Smith (2003:35) seventy five years of British rule in West Africa left one hospital
for 30 million Nigerians, a ratio of doctors to inhabitants of 1:60, 000, and
only half the children of one province surviving beyond their fifth year.
Nigeria and Gold coast could only boast of one university each, university
college of Ibadan, and university of Legon.
Colonialism
has now completely disappeared from the continent Portugal was the first
European country to have contact with Africa and the last to leave. Angola’s
independence from Portugal, Namibia from South Africa’s “illegal” occupation,
and the attainment of majority rule by Pretoria marked the end of colonialism ,
and racist’s minority rule in Africa. To chronologists who are interested in
terminal dates, the end of colonialism represents the dusk of an old era, and
the dawn of a new one. But to a political scientist who is interested more with
reality than appearance, the year 1960 represented a new beginning for Africa
to confront the trappings of colonialism in their different guises. Indeed, it was
not until after independence that radical Kwame Nkrumah realized that the
eagerly awaited good life for Africans would not necessarily follow political
independence.
Colonialism as an Imperial Ideology
Colonialism
is one of the most important events in international relations. It has not only
defined relationships; it represents a policy to some people, a force to others
and an experience to all. A number of reasons; political, economic, cultural
and psychological have been identified to have been responsible for
colonialism. What is however relevant here is that European powers employed
colonialism to have a foothold in Africa and Asian countries.
The
partition of Africa at the Berlin conference, held in Germany between Nov. 1884
and February 1885 formalized the intrusion of the European power into Africa,
which began through the activities of their trading companies, the signing of
treaties with Africa rulers, and their conquest and subjugation of their
domains. As a result, Britain established control over 4 million square miles
of territory, France ruled over 3 ½ million and Belgium with about 1 million (Adeniran,
1983:194). A major policy of colonial rule was the policy of divide and rule.
This was to ensure complete domination and to prevent organized resistance
against their rule from hitherto homogeneous ethnic group Balkanized into
separate states: Due to this artificial partition, the Yoruba and Hausa were
divided between France in Benin Republic, and Britain in Nigeria.
This
division was further strengthened when Britain adopted the policy of
Association to rule her colonies while France preferred the policy of assimilation
to administer her territories. Worse still, French and English languages, the
official language of colonial masters became the lingua franca in the
respective colonies, which further compounded efforts at integration after interdependence.
Just like it began colonial rule was sustained by force, but the colonialists
particularly, the British were diplomatic enough to know when to apply the
break. France, however, suffered the bitter consequences of defeat in the
Algerian War of Independence. Portugal was also late in accepting the reality
that independence must be granted to her colonies because they were seen as
extension of the territories of the imperial powers.
0 Comments