Colonialism and colonial administrative system in Africa

Colonial administrative systems were the ways of controlling and maintaining colonial power in colonies after the establishment of colonialism. In the early 20th century, the process of conquest and partition of Africa were almost completed by European powers, only Ethiopia and Liberia escaped from colonial control. Colonialists including Germany, French, British, Portugal, Belgium etc. after colonizing African countries they introduced different administrative systems in their colonies depended on the following:

The nature of the people in the colonies, such as being cooperative, military, strong, weak etc.
Challenges encountered during acquiring colonies i.e. by strong resistance, collaboration etc.
The character of colonial power, for example Germany preferred direct rule while British preferred indirect rule and French preferred assimilation policy.

Reasons as why colonialists introduced different administrative systems after the establishment colonial rule.


To change the form or tradition of the African system of administration.
To maintain or ensure effective occupation control of the colony socially, politically and economically.
Maximization of profit through colonial exploitation by setting up a system of administration which favored colonialists.
 To ensure peace and harmony in colonies after faced reactions resistances during the establishment of colonial rule.
To prepare the suitable and conducive environment for establishment of colonial economy.
To fulfill the agreement reached during the Berlin conference of 1884-1885 on effective occupation of colonies.
Therefore; the reasons behind the establishment of different colonial administrative system in Africa after colonialists managed to defeat Africans, was due to many resistances colonialists faced while they were trying to introduce colonial rule in Africa.

Types/Forms of Colonial Administrative Systems Adopted in Africa

Direct Rule
Indirect Rule
 Assimilation Policy
 Association Policy


A.   INDIRECT RULE SYSTEM

Indirect rule was an administrative system in which traditional rulers implemented the colonial policies for the aims of preserving of traditional political institutions and their adaptations under the direction of the British administration to the requirements of modern units of local government.
Indirect rule was common in British colonies and it was introduced by an eminent colonial governor by the name of Lord Lugard, who implemented when he was the Governor of Northern Nigeria from 1900-1906 and the whole Nigeria from 1912-1920, the approach was involving the identifying the local power structure (Kings, Chiefs or Headmen ).


Reasons for the application of Indirect rule system

i.                    Lack of manpower. The British always maintained that indirect rule system was designed to protect and preserve African political systems, but in the early British found that the area they seized were simply too large to be ruled directly without the assistance from the indigenous Africans.
ii.                  Communication problems, the use of African Kings or Chiefs was important because he understood his people’s language hence it will be easy to transmit orders and directives from European to Africans.
iii.                To avoid resistances. Indirect rule make Africans understand that their fellow Africans exploit them and not Europeans as it was mostly applied to the area where there were powerful local rulers.
iv.                The system was cheap economically and strategically. By recognized and offering to work with local rulers not only did the cost of running the colony be low, also they used local authority managed by Africans to boost their colonial interests.
v.                  Physical difficulties in the colonial Africa also forced British to use indirect rule. The thick forest, tropical diseases, wild animals, climatic condition, hostile tribes led British to adopt for indirect rule system.
vi.                British use indirect rule due to the fact that was suitable technique of governing illiterate masses of Africans.
vii.              The British were afraid of eliminating the local administrative set up. The use of traditional rulers could help them get puppets that would implement their policies.
viii.            Tropical diseases which killed many British personnels. e.g. Malaria

APPLICATION OF INDIRECT RULE IN NIGERIA BY LORD FREDRIC LUGARD

Indirect rule was first applied in Nigeria by the British governor known as Sir Fredrick Lugard in 1900-1906. Indirect rule in Nigeria was applied after British encountered (faced) a lot of challenges from big tribes which had strong traditional administrative systems like Fulani aristocracy who governed Sokoto caliphate by using Islamic laws in Northern Nigeria.

Therefore the British by using indirect rule which was required as a role model in the British colonial administration. Local native leaders in Nigeria continued to rule their traditional land, collect taxes and implement orders and duties as assigned by the British. So British succeeded to apply indirect rule in Northern Nigeria despite it was not successful much in Southern Nigeria in Yomba tribe.
Through indirect rule Lord Lugard was able to control Nigeria by using their local traditional ruling system and cooperative leaders who performed the following activities;
1.      To collect taxes.
2.      To implement British laws and policies.
3.      To reduce resistance from the people.
4.      To reduce the political, economic and military costs.
5.      To rule their land under the British control.

Despite the fact that Indirect rule succeeded to rule Nigeria especially Northern Nigeria, other areas In Nigeria like southern Nigeria was unsuccessful due to poor and less cooperation from YORUBA land chiefs or kings who did not organize and centralize Yoruba people since before.

Therefore the British found the following as the failure of indirect rule in Southern Nigeria;

1.      Chiefs /Local rulers of Southern Nigeria were not given respect by the Yoruba people.
2.      Local rulers were appointed to implement the British polices but they failed i.e. collection of taxes.
3.      Southern Nigerian societies had strong traditional administrative system such as the use of chiefs for example Lagos had no chiefdom system.
4.      Southern Nigeria was decentralized than Northern Nigeria which was more centralized.

Therefore indirect rule became very difficult to be applied in Southern Nigeria by Lord Lugard during his six years of administering Nigeria so as to transform it into commercial [economically] as well as politically and to establish British protectorate by using its local rulers.

Why Lord Fredrick Lugard applied/preferred application of Indirect Rule in the British colonies

1.     Some of the African societies were centralized hence no need of the new colonial administrative system. For example Sokoto caliphate, Bugando.
2.    Some of the African communities were not competent to control themselves with the British assistance hence used indirect rule.
3.      British wanted to spread their superiority complex over Africans.
4.      They used indirect rule to avoid administrative costs.
5.   British wanted to avoid communication barriers, for example language problems and poor infrastructures.
6.      British were few in number so indirect rule solved the problem of manpower.
7.      Lord Lugard preferred indirect rule because it avoided resistance and conflicts from local rulers and people.

STRUCTURE OF THE BRITISH INDIRECT RULE

Indirect rule administrative system which was applied by the British in her colonies was arranged in different structures to ensure effective colonial control over colony and good administrative machinery which will prepare conducive environment for establishment of colonial economy.

The structure of indirect rule was as follows;

Colonial secretary stayed in London [UK]
Governor appointed in UK and hired in colonies.
Provincial commissioner was a British lived in certain regions to represent the governor.
District commissioner was a British (white) lived in district level representing provision commissioner; he lived with people and gave them orders through local rulers.
Local chiefs were local rulers appointed by British who were given orders by colonial officers include provincial commissioners and district commissioners to supervise in the daily activities and local ordinances.
Headmen. These were Africans who received orders from local chiefs and implement them to the people (Africans) by using force once people resisted.

Problems/challenges British faced in implementing the use of indirect rule system in Nigeria.

Despite the British succeeded to rule Africans indirectly through their local rulers, they met a number of challenges, since British indirect rule introduced different policies and systems, in Africa which was new and not existed in Africa before such as; Payment of taxes, forced labour, land alienation, introduction of coercive apparatus such as police, army, court etc. The following were problems challenges /difficulties Britain faced during Implementing the use of indirect rule;

1.      Absence of centralized administration in North Eastern Nigerian societies, such as Igbo and Yoruba were not well centralized like the Sokoto caliphate or Buganda kingdom hence made the application of indirect rule to be very difficult due to lack of cooperation and local rulers’ support.
2.      Illiteracy of the masses. Some of the societies In Nigeria such as the Yoruba and the Abeokuta who became Independent in 1893, due to their illiterate they organized people to oppose indirect rule.
3.      Harsh British policies. Some of the indirect rule British policies such as forced labour and taxation which was introduced to the people were new and unpopular hence reacted by the people of Nigeria especially Igbo.
4.      Opposition I resistance from the local rulers. Some of the local rulers did not support British indirect rule for example rulers from Yomba and Abeokuta.
5.      Creation of British wants puppet chiefs. Indirect rule faced challenges in Nigeria because British decided to create their own chiefs who were rejected and unpopular hence people opposed against them.
6.      Poor infrastructures. Absence of good infrastructures such as roads, railways, and harbor phones made the failure to access information.

INDIRECT RULE SYSTEM IN TANGANYIKA

Tanganyika formerly was a German colony from 1886 after Berlin conference. After the end of the first world war of 1914-1918 Germany lost Tanganyika colony to British who took the victory of the war. During German rule in Tanganyika they used direct rule system thus faced a lot of resistances from Tanganyika societies such as Hehe resistance, Yao and Chagga resistance. Therefore after the British took control over the Tanganyika colony; they decided to change the former German direct rule which used Jumbes and Akidas and introduced indirect rule.

The first British governor in Tanganyika who was known as Sir Donald Cameroon initiated and introduced indirect rule in Tanganyika. Sir Donald Cameroon decided to introduce indirect rule in Tanganyika due to the influence and motivation from governor Lord Fredrick Lugard who succeeded to control Nigeria through indirect rule so sir Donald Cameroon wanted to copy that system of indirect rule and apply it in Tanganyika hence he met the following challenges.


The challenges/difficulties sir Donald Cameroon faced when he introduced Indirect Rule in Tanganyika

1.      Absence of traditional administrative system. Germany removed all local rulers’ administration during their rule in Tanganyika, so it was difficult for Sir Donald Cameroon to introduce them again.
2.      Illiteracy and ignorance of the masses over indirect rule. Tanganyika was controlled and ruled by the German power for a very long time directly so indirect rule was a new system which was not known.
3.      Poor organization of permanent chiefs. Few tribes in Tanganyika recognized their chiefs and they bad status and power, less executive, financially and judiciary for example the Chagga.
4.      Poor infrastructure. Indirect rule got a lot of challenges in Tanganyika since the country was big while there was poor network and communication links to reach and coordinate local chiefs.
5.      Absence of local authorities in Tanganyika societies such as; coastal tribes which had no traditional local authorities since Arabs’ domination which introduced Islamic law. Due to this Sir Donald Cameroon get no support of local rulers in his administration.

Despite the fact that Sir Donald Cameroon met a lot of challenges problems in the introduction of indirect rule in Tanganyika as we have seen above, he preferred and forced to introduce indirect rule through;

1.      The native authority ordinance of 1926 and the coast ordinance of 1919.

These two laws (ordinances aimed at creating a solid foundation for the indirect rule administration and local authorities. Through these two laws (ordinance) local chiefs were required and given the following tasks and duties;

 Tax collection such as hut tax and poll tax.
Chiefs were responsible for enforcing British laws and orders.
Chiefs were given judiciary power to enforce their decisions according to customary laws.
Chiefs were responsible to implement British policies, law, ordinances and orders to their people.

 How Indirect was indirect rule?

 Indirect rule was indirect because the British used local rulers to organize and supervise various colonial economic activities such as cash crop production, tax collection and building colonial infrastructure on behalf.
  British colonialist used Africans rulers in administering punishment to their fellow Africans on their behalf.
The British colonialist used Africans rulers to resolve disputes where the conflicting individuals were African natives on their behalf.
 British government issued orders to the Africans local rulers who then had to convey them to the ruled Africans ready for implementation.
 The system shifted the blame on African rulers making them be hated by their fellow Africans for their support of colonial rule evils such as exploitation and oppression from these fellow Africans.

Functions of African local chiefs during the Indirect rule.

They acted as a symbolic representation of their people to the colonial masters.
They participated in making decisions signing treaties on behalf of their masses.
They acted as the bridge between the colonialists and the local people they took orders from the colonialist and took back the feedback from the Africans.
They collected taxes and revenues for the colonial masters from the local people taxes like polling tax, hutting tax etc.
They dealt with judicial functions; they acted as judges, and magistrates for the wrong doers in their societies.
They acted as supervisors in colonial production; they ensured constant supply of raw materials and cheap labour for the- colonial economy.
They provided crucial information to the colonialists concerning the nature and the attitudes of Africans.
They preserved local values, culture and norms of the African societies.
The evaluation of Indirect rule.

To a greater extent indirect rule was very successful in the British colonies in the following;
It was successful to divide and rule the Africans through their local rulers who were turned into puppets of Europeans.
It also facilitated in colonial production, which ensure constant supply or raw materials supervised and monitored by local chiefs who were on the grassroots.
It minimized the cost since many African chiefs 'were not paid salaries or wages but they depended on praises, gifts and grants.
Accumulation of human power as it was available for administrative purposes e.g. in a single colony of Britain only top administrators were needed governors, provincial commissioner and district commissioner others were local chiefs.
It also achieved in reducing friction between Africa and Europeans.
Was it Indirect rule?

The British model of indirect rule was indirect theoretically, but practically it was direct rule. How?
1.      The local rulers lacked Autonomy/independence and they were subjected to direct intervention of the colonizers in making decision African countries were given autonomy but the final decision came from Europeans.
2.      All the orders were formulated by the colonizers, African chiefs were only to implement the orders and not to create or to discuss them thus a direct rule not indirect.
3.      Europeans had powers to hire and fire any local leader who disobeyed their orders.
4.      Colonizers lacked legal authority to create new political structure that did not exist before but they did.
5.      The whole process of indirect rule was to benefit Europeans the African chiefs were used as tools to enable the European to achieve their goals.

Impacts of the Indirect Rule System on African Colonies

i.              Indirect rule boosted tribalism. One of the significant political consequences of indirect rule was that it reinforced separate ethnic identities and delayed the development of national political consciousness.
ii.              Indirect rule weakened traditional administration. The traditional rulers or sultan were no longer the head of social and political orders but was rather a subordinate of the British overlord who used him to implement such unpopular measures as forced labor, taxation and military enlistment for the two world wars.
iii.      Indirect rule system promoted the problems of education, health and employment opportunities. For fear that the traditional ruling class would became members of the royal families were in most cases not encouraged to attend schools.
iv.           African educated elites were excluded from local government to participate from ruling rather British continued using uneducated local rulers.
v.               The system introduced the widened social differences among the natives. Chiefs and their relatives were somehow privileged and favored from getting social services in expense of the majority.
vi.           It led the emergence of the puppet class among the Africans, the group that were the major setback during the nationalist movement.
vii.      The system cemented and centralized bureaucracy through the use of district commissioners. This marked the beginning of the local government, a system which is now days practiced in most African governments.
viii.          The system of indirect rule failed to promote the welfare and development of the ordinary people while it made the traditional authorities not only backward looking but also unpopular both with the educated elites and the ordinary people from whom the collected taxes on behalf of the British.

 b. THE DIRECT RULE SYSTEM

The term direct rule refers to the system of administration in which traditional political and administrative organizations and the leaders are replaced with European system. This means that European officers ruled directly without using any intermediaries and it was used in the colonies with high population of white settlers such as Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and Algeria.

Also can be defined as a form of colonial administrative system which ruled Africans directly by replacing African traditional, political and administrative organizations.  Direct rule was mainly adopted by Germany in colonies such as Tanganyika, Namibia, Cameroon and Togo; also Portuguese applied direct rule in her colonies.

Why British used direct rule in some of her colonies instead of Indirect rule.

1)      Presence of many whites such as in Zimbabwe.
2)      Plenty of resources available in the colonies.
3)      The nature of African colony. British decided to use direct rule when Africans were ignorant, reluctant and not supportive of indirect rule.
4)      Good communication and infrastructures such as roads, railways and harbors led the British to use direct rule.
5)      Absence of strong centralized states.
6)      Absence of resistances.
7)      Absence of tropical diseases made the British not seek for local rulers’ support.

  THE BRITISH DIRECT RULE IN ZIMBABWE [SOUTHERN RHODESIA].

Zimbabwe after being colonized by British in 1890’s under the company known as British South African Company (BSACO) led by prominent imperialist named Cecil Rhodes who ruled directly and called Zimbabwe as Southern Rhodesia due to his effort and financial resources used to occupy shone territories.

Therefore after Zimbabwe had been colonized by British and named as Southern Rhodesia many Europeans came to live in Zimbabwe because it was a huge country having a lot of resources such as fertile land and minerals due to this British ruled Zimbabwe by using direct rule.

Why British white settlers used direct rule in Zimbabwe

1.      Absence of local chief’s /local rulers of Zimbabwe such as Indunas were no longer existed during the resistance between British and Shona and Ndebele.
2.      Presence of many white settlers in Zimbabwe. Cecil Rhodes influenced many white settlers to invest in Zimbabwe so there was no manpower problem hence direct rule.
3.      The richness of resources in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was a rich colony having fertile land; minerals etc. made British to wish to rule it directly so as to exploit resources efficiently.
4.      Absence of a centralized state. Zimbabwe had no strong centralized state since imposition of colonial rule disturbed the system hence direct rule.
5.      The effect of the Chimurenga war [Shona and Ndebele], Chimurenga war left enemity between Zimbabwe people and the Europeans hence difficult to involve Africans in their administration.
6.      People of Zimbabwe did not want to be colonized by the British.
7.      Poor support from Zimbabwe local chiefs /rulers. Local chiefs were not happy with British since their position and status eroded during British colonial rule that is why they did not want to support them in administration hence British used direct rule.

Characteristics of direct rule applied by the British in Zimbabwe

1.      It based on excessive oppression and suppression. Africans were highly oppressed and suppressed by British settlers through direct rule using coercive apparatus such as police and soldiers.
2.   Zimbabwe was proclaimed as a crown colony. Direct rule in Zimbabwe made Zimbabwe as British settlers’ part and parcel of their motherland country [Britain]
3.   It based on emergence of law and order. Direct rule led to increase of many laws and orders in Zimbabwe.
4.      Direct rule led Zimbabwe to be under control of British South African Company [BSACO] in 1890 to 1923.
5.      Direct rule in Zimbabwe made educated people neglected. Direct rule in Zimbabwe made the educated people neglected not to be involved in the British government as a result of the armed struggle during fighting for independence and freedom.
6.    Direct rule gave settlers in Zimbabwe legislative and political rights. British settlers in Zimbabwe were highly empowered politically, economically and favored by laws; for example in 1923 settlers attained their self-government.
7.      Direct rule alienated Zimbabwe fertile land. Through direct rule the British settlers acquired massive fertile land left the Zimbabwean’s people landless hence provide labour in the settlers land and farms.

The British direct rule in Zimbabwe brought a lot of negative impact to the people of Zimbabwe such as; oppression, exploitation, land alienation, forced labour, taxation etc. as a result people of Zimbabwe took arms (armed struggle) during fighting for independence in 1980.

  What were the similarities and differences between indirect and direct rule.

Similarities
·         Both were based on exploitation of African resources.
·         Both based on oppression of Africans through the use of force i.e. police, arm and court.
·         Both based on racial segregation since African colour was regarded as inferior over white colour.
·         Both were capitalist systems.
·         Both aimed at colonizing control Africans.
·         Both faced resistance or opposition from Africans.
·         Both failed to meet their demands.

Differences
·         The Germans used direct rule while indirect rule was used by the British.
·         Direct rule did not use local chiefs while indirect rule used local chiefs.
·         Indirect rule did not face many resistances from Africans while direct rule faced many resistances.
·     Indirect rule was easy to manage while direct rule was difficult to manage because of language problems.
·         Indirect rule needed small Europeans’ manpower while direct rule needed large manpower.
·         Indirect rule was cheap but direct rule was expensive.
·         Indirect rule created puppet class among Africans who cooperated with the British and support British colonialism while direct rule did not

c. ASSIMILATION POLICY

Was an administrative system applied by French in her colonies, which aimed at turning or transforming Africans into Frenchmen or citizens. A person who assimilated was called Assimilador. Assimiladors was taught how to behave or think like French people. Assimilation is a term derived from the French word assimiler means cause to resemble.

French introduced assimilation policy to her colonies so as to spread her culture of superiority all over the world. Therefore the introduction or application of assimilation policy in French colonies goes to them with the introduction of French language, institutions, laws, religion and customs. Colonies or persons to follow assimilation policy (assimiladors) were supposed to follow the French culture hence enjoy right just like French citizens.

Unlike the British or Belgium the French believed in a colonial policy of cultural assimilation some time mockingly described as turning African into "Black French men". This assimilation was limited to a small elite class which felt it self smothered in alien clothes and idea revolted intellectually, they insisted on the need to strip away their French cultural wrapping in order to discover their own true color of black skins, this led to the development of the philosophy of blackness i.e. "Negritude" which stressed the essential unity of black people and self determination of Africans.

Conditions for African to be Assimilated

Should be Fluent in French language both spoken and written.
Africans should practice Monogamy a person should marry only one wife.
Military training must be compulsory to those who would like to be assimilated.
Anyone to be assimilated should be of the Age of 15 years and not above 50 years.
At least should be with ten years of experience in government services.
Any person should be ready to succumb to western culture in practice.
The reasons why French applied Assimilation policy in her colonies.

1.     French revolution of 1789. French applied assimilation policy in her colonies since they said that; the French revolution which occurred in 1789 advocated for the equality, fraternity and freedom to all regardless of Vaile or color.
2.    Assimilation policy applied by the French to spread their superiority all over the world. Since the Africans assimilated would continue to spread French superiority.
3.   To spread French culture and civilization. French applied assimilation policy since they wanted to spread their culture through language and customs.
4.     Assimilation applied to turn African to behave like French citizen.
5.      To facilitate French exploitation. Assimilation aimed at exploiting Africans smoothly by creating false consciousness to those who assimilated (assimiladors) to work for the benefits of the French.
6.      Cheap economically since assimilators work and behave just like French and became passive.

Characteristics of French Assimilation Policy

There were to be commune representatives in the French national assembly. The laws applicable in France were well applied in the territories.
 The French Africans were considered as a great obstacle for colonial rule.
The French administrative structure was more oppressive than that of the British.
  Africans were allowed to register as French citizens and they could seek elections as deputies in Paris.
The French administrators were given more judicial powers in the provinces.
The French decided not to use African traditional institutions in their administration.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE ASSIMILATION SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION




THE OPERATION OF ASSIMILATION POLICY STRUCTURE APPLIED BY THE FRENCH IN THEIR COLONIES SUCH AS SENEGAL AND IVORY COAST

 Minister of colonies. Minister of colonies was the top most position in the French assimilation administrative structure. The minister of colonies stayed [lived] in Paris and he or she was in charge of all the French colonies [provinces] abroad.
A governor general. Was the second post of the French assimilation policy structure. A governor stayed at a colony [province] which was the center of the French colonies such as Dakar and Senegal in West Africa where Governor General stayed there to administer other colonies [provinces. Governor General was responsible for implementing orders and instructions from the colony secretary to colonies [provinces].
Commandant de circle. Were equivalent to paramount chiefs who were placed by the French the successor of the pre-colonial chiefs; their duties were of pre-colonial to receive orders from the governor general to their fellow Africans.
Chiefs de sub division [canton]. These leaders were in district levels that controlled important French administrative departments. Their duties were;

1.      To recruit Africans into the army.
2.      To register taxpayers in their areas.
3.      To recruit labors by force for infrastructures buildings etc.

 Chiefs de cantons. This was the lowest position in the French assimilation structure; it was occupied by village heads of sub location.

The duties/functions of the chief de canton were:
1.      Maintain French laws and orders at the village level.
2.      Collect taxes from Africans.
3.      Maintain public goods and services such as roads, schools and offices.

d. ASSOCIATION POLICY IN FRENCH COLONIES.

Association policy was the second French administrative policy/system after the failure of the assimilation policy which respected African culture and allowed them to develop independently. Association policy which replaced assimilation policy was not aiming at turning Africans to resemble French citizens, rather association policy applied by French was aimed at spreading and building of the French superiority in her colonies through different approaches such as; by using institutions and laws of the French to colonized Africans. Association policy left and allowed Africans to preserve their own customs and also compatible alongside with French interests.

French decided to shift from assimilation to association policy due to the failure of the assimilation policy which undermined African culture and spread French culture and civilization by forcing Africans to resemble with French citizens which was not practicable because it was not easy to change or turn someone who belongs to a certain cultural back ground (Africans) to behave (be) like French men. So this assimilation policy got challenges from both parts and Frenchmen in Paris were not happy to see other people given such rights as the French men.

Reasons why the Assimilation Policy failed hence introduction of the Association Policy.

1.      Economic expenses. Assimilation policy was very expensive since it needed a lot of finance to turn Africans to resemble with Frenchmen by giving them education, social services etc.
2.      Language problems differences. Africans had many languages so it was difficult for Africans to adopt French language hence failure of the assimilation.
3.      Cultural differences. Assimilation policy failed since it introduced different cultures in Africa which were different from African cultures e.g. Language, beliefs, marriage etc.
4.      It was opposed by the French people.
5.      It was opposed by Africans. Africans, who were not assimilated, opposed assimilation policy because it ignored African culture and it did not give Africans their expectations like being in top positions.
6.      Fear of the French over Africans. Assimilation policy gave Africans favor and chances in the French administration which led to fear towards the Africans.
7.    Law differences. Assimilation policy introduced laws which were different from African laws; example foreign French civil laws differ from African customary laws.
8.    Assimilation policy was a vision less policy; assimilation policy had no divisions since assimilated Africans (assimiladors) later on turned against the French.

ASSOCIATION POLICY AGAINST ASSIMILATION POLICY.

Association policy was another French administrative system which replaced assimilation policy where by the French did not interfere with African culture such as religion and other matters. Association policy was against the assimilation policy since it did not aim at turning Africans to resemble Frenchmen, however in its practice French officials under association policy tended to implement French ways of life in administration and laws purposely to spread French superiority. Association policy used more authoritarian approach of governing Africans unlike assimilation policy.

In 1914-1945 association policy treated Africans colonies as an integral part of the French since African colonies were given right to elect representatives in the French government to have free trade, unions, press and political parties. These affected African countries both positively and negatively during fighting and post Independence where by these countries, which formerly were French colonies became francophone countries which associated/assimilated into French political systems.

Similarities between Assimilation Policy and Association Policy

  Both created economic dependence. African countries especially West African countries which got independent in early 1960s, they still depend and have financial relation with their former colonial master [French] since French is their source of market for their crops.
They affected the system of education. The system of education used in former French colonies are still the same as in French up to date; the French speaking people in west Africa except Guinea still have French mentality.
African countries which were former French colonies regarded as francophone countries overseas process of French which still have close relationships with the French people in social and economic matters e.g. West African countries.
Both weakened African traditions and Islamic religion in West Africa by introducing Christianity i.e. Roman Catholic.
Both destroyed African traditional authorities and leaders since assimilated Africans replaced many to the traditional leaders.
Both undermined African culture; African culture was regarded as inferior towards French culture which regarded as regarded as superior and civilized for e.g. French language.

The difference between Assimilation Policy and Association Policy

The subjects in the association policy came under the system of law known as the indigent. In this system subjects could be forced to serve a longer period in the French colonial army than assimilated citizens which encouraged them to seek French citizenship.
With association policy assimilated Africans were regarded as French citizens but the other Africans in the French colonies were regarded as a subject that is second-class citizens to which French civil and criminal law did not apply to them.
 In the association policy the African subjects [second class citizen] retained their cultural practices such as polygamy and religion. But assimilated Africans had to follow French culture and civilization.
Assimilation policy aimed mainly at creating French superiority complex towards Africans while association policy based on authorization or controlling Africa.
Assimilation policy was impracticable while association policy was practicable since it was easy to control people than charging people to become new citizens.
Assimilation policy was very expensive since assimilated Africans were given all right such as education social services etc. as French citizens while association policy was not expensive.
Assimilation policy failed due to many challenges from both Africans and French men due to fear of lack of vision etc. while association policy did not fail.

Question: Compare and contrast between indirect rule applied by British and assimilation policy  
                  applied  by the French.


Similarities/Comparisons between indirect rule and assimilation policy

Both aimed at maintaining their colonial control so as to ensure their effective occupation.
Both were exploitative systems since they aimed at preparing a ground for establishment of colonial economy.
Both destroyed African culture since indirect rule and assimilation policy undermined (ignored) African culture such as language, education and norms.
 Both were oppressive since they based on forcing Africans to implement their laws and policies through cohesive apparatus such as police, army, prison, courts etc.
Both fractured to meet their demands because Africans did not accept colonialism hence fought against colonialists.
Both were in capitalist system.
 Both created classes.
Both faced resistances.

Contrast/differences between the British indirect rule and the French assimilation policy

Indirect rule was applied by the British while assimilation policy was applied by the French.
Indirect rule used local chiefs in administration while assimilation did not prefer to use local chiefs.
Indirect rule was cheap economically since it used local chiefs/ rulers in administration while assimilation policy was very expensive since it used a lot of resources to transform Africans into Frenchmen.
Assimilation policy was impracticable while association policy was practicable since a person with a certain cultural background cannot totally be transformed into a new culture.
Indirect rule avoided resistance while assimilation policy met a lot of challenges from both Africans and the French men hence shift to association.
Indirect rule was easy to manage while assimilation rule was difficult to manage.
 Indirect rule needed small manpower to manage while assimilation needed large manpower to implement their policies.
Indirect rule did not aim at turning Africans while assimilation policy aimed at turning Africans.
Indirect rule considered African tradition while assimilation policy did not consider African culture.
 Indirect rule did not face resistance while assimilation policy faced a lot of resistances.

     Impacts of French system of administration.

         i.    De-Africanisation; The assimilated Africans abandoned African cultural values and succumbed to French culture like religion, language, dressing, etc. which created the decline of African traditional values.
             ii.        Facilitation of colonial production; it facilitated colonial production in the acquired French colonies under the supervision of local people. Africans were intensively exploited in the so-called association policy.
           iii.        Development of class-consciousness; which resulted into ant-colonial struggles influenced by extreme exploitation and oppression of the masses.
           iv.        Assimilation policy weakened Africans traditions such as Islamic religion in West Africa by introducing Christianity for example Roman Catholic Church.
             v.        Colony was incorporated into the French republic and regarded as an overseas province of France speaking people in West African still have close relationship with the French people than their fellow African countries.
           vi.         Assimilation policy integrated allowed Africans to participate in French political matters in French Paris. Assimilation policy allowed African to participate in French parliament for example Blaise Diagne was elected as deputy in the French parliament.

COLONIAL MILITARY AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS.

Introduction

Both colonial military and legal institutions were introduced in Africa purposely to enforce Africans to accept to follow different colonial administrative systems such as direct rule, indirect rule, assimilation policy and association policy. Therefore colonialists in order to ensure control of Africans effectively by following their new administrative systems they introduced these colonial military and legal institutions such as police, prisons army court etc.

COLONIAL MILITARY INSTITUTIONS

Colonial military refers to coercive apparatus such as police, army, prison, and courts introduced by colonialists in order to maintain laws, order and security of colonial states or government. Colonial militaries were introduced by colonialists in order to the colonial state or government to meet their interests. Therefore colonial military which were introduced in African colonies were different depended on nature of the people found in that colony. For example colonies which were militant and conservative against colonialist colonial militaries were also aggressive or harsh to the Africans.

Examples of famous colonial military force which were introduced by the British to maintain colonial control in Central and East Africa including Kenya. Uganda and Malawi in 1902-1904 was known as King African Rifle (KAR). Soldiers who were recruited to join these military forces such as KAR and the police force were taken from within the colony or outside the colony for example; Nubians were the soldiers recruited (taken) from outside the territory [colony] who were mainly preferable since they were very strictly in terms of treatment compared to the native policemen or soldiers.

King African Rifle (KAR)

Functions of colonial Military Forces

To maintain colonial interests. Colonial military aimed at safeguarding the interests of the colonialists that is to control and exploit Africans smoothly.
To suppress African resistances. Colonial military aimed at punishing Africans who were militant and opposed colonial government.
To maintain peace and harmony. Colonial military ensured that people within the colony maintain peace and harmony by following laws and orders.
To maintain security of the colony. Colonial military force was established to protect the colony from Internal and external invasion from other military forces.
 Power to arrest criminals. Colonial military was responsible to arrest people who committed crimes or offenses to the court.
 To defend colonial boundaries. Colonial military force such as KAR was responsible to defend colonial boundaries.
 To collect information and supervision of colonial activities. Colonial military forces were responsible to collect intelligent information which threatens the public interests and supervising different activities such as tax collection.
To facilitate colonial economy exploitation.
Military forces enforced colonial control in Africa.

COLONIAL LEGAL INSTITUTIONS.

Colonial legal institutions refer to the institutions which deal with legal matters within the colony. Colonial legal institutions consisted with legislative council [LEGCO], council of elders, prison and courts. The colonial legal institutions were dealing with;
 Advising the society.
 Educating the society about legal matters.
Receive people’s legal claims.
Give legal aid.
 Directing legal procedures to be taken on army cases.
The legal institutions were also established for the interests of the colonialists since they were influenced by colonial administration within the colony and metropolitan states. Council of elders was employed in direct British colonies.

Characteristics/features of colonial Legal Institutions
 Colonial legal institution was dominated/monopolized by colonialists.
Colonial legal institutions based on interests of the colonialists.
Were cohesive in nature i.e. very harsh, oppressive and punish Africans.
Were varied from one colony to another for example South Rhodesia [Zimbabwe] legal institution which was introduced in 1898 varied from other areas e.g. settlers colonies laws were very harsh to Africans.
 Colonial legal institutions were mainly based on the influences of colonial administrators within the colony and in metropolitan states.
The functions of the colonial Legal Institutions.
 To make laws, act and ordinances. Since every colony had its demand of colonial matters, the legal institutions took the responsibility of making laws or ordinances enforcing Africans to undertake various matters and also responsibilities.
 To handle claims on various issues. The legal colonial institution handle white claims and canal elders handle African claims
To direct procedures to be taken in a certain case. Colonial legal institutions had to direct the legal procedures to be taken in handling certain cases in collaboration with courts and prisons.
 To advise and educate people on various legal matters.
To amend the laws (change or modify) laws, acts and ordinance. The colonial legal institutions had a duty to amend laws, acts and ordinances in order to affect and to felt the colonial administration influenced or as a result of social, political and economical change in the colony.
Example of laws/ordinances amended were native labour ordinances of 1988 in Kenya which forced squatters (labour) to work in 90 days in settler’s forms and raise the number of days to 180 in the years.
The impacts of the Colonial Military and Legal Systems in Africa.
 The two colonial systems undermined the traditional defense and legal systems that prevailed during the pre-colonial period.
The Africans stopped caring for the public property such as government buildings, equipment and vehicles because they regarded them to be properties of colony.
All the African who were employed in the Reference forced of the colonial government were considered to be traitors their follow Africans, due to the business and brutality done by colonialists.