Some colonial powers, including Britain, preferred a system of indirect rule: They kept the existing African government intact but ensured that its leader would do whatever they asked. For instance, a British administrator might ask the leader of an African community to change tax rates or to conduct business in a way that was more beneficial for the colonial power. Under this system, the king or chief wasn't an independent ruler but more like a paid representative of the colonizing country. If he wasn't willing to follow the orders delivered by government officials in Europe, the Europeans would find someone to replace him.
Even though the structure of African government stayed intact when an imperial power used indirect rule, its power became more centralized and the society it governed became more exclusive. In other words, that government became more European in style and structure. In addition, African leaders appointed by a power like Britain could be cruel and unsympathetic, as their allegiance was primarily to Britain, not to the people they ruled. Self-interest and promises of wealth guided them away from their people's interests.
Naturally, the shift from self-governance to indirect obedience to a colonial power created a series of corrupt leaders. Many historians believe that Europe's system of indirect rule began a tradition of brutal dictatorship in Africa. Several African countries have struggled under corrupt dictators throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, and that struggle is considered by many historians to be another legacy of European imperialism.
Learn more about African dictatorships and their colonial roots in the slideshow below.
Mobutu Sese Seko (1930-1997) was the dictator of the Republic of the Congo from 1965 to 1997. During his reign, he stole billions of dollars from his country and lived a wealthy, decadent life while his citizens lived in complete poverty. |
Question
Why would an imperial power choose a system of indirect rule?