 |
| Sir Donald Cameron |
THE INDIRECT RULE SYSTEM
It was a system of administration in which the African indigenous authorities were involved in governing their fellow Africans on behalf of the Europeans. This system was applied by Europeans in colonial Africa.
The prominent colonial power in using this system was Britain. The British made various studies and research before using this system.
They were focusing on how to exploit African human and natural resources in such a way that the Africans couldn’t feel (note) great variation or changes if compared with the pre-colonial time administration.
Other Europeans too, used it but in a few cases. For example the German administration in Rwanda and Burundi.
At first place, the British introduce this system in the Northern territories of Nigeria from 1900 by Sir Frederick Lugard. The reasons included the presence of well-developed centralized state such as the Sokoto Islamic caliphates and the natives’ leaders’ readiness to cooperate with the British. In the early 20th C the system was spread to other British colonies of Africa. In Tanganyika, the system was introduced by the governor, Sir Donald Cameron in 1926. Donald Cameroon succeeded Sir Horace Byatt.
In this system, the British involved the African native rules such as kings e.g. The Mtwa, Mangi, Mukama, Kabaka, Mwene, Igwe, etc. in administering their fellow Africans.
The African chiefs were given the power of levying and collection of taxes to boost their local treasury, to supervise production (peasantry), to make by laws sustainable to their locality and to be pressed over counts.
In areas without natural hereditary chiefs, the British used the WARANT chiefs obtained from amongst the wise men of the particular area. A group of Chiefs was put under one PARAMOUNT chief. Example Nkosi ya Makosi Mbelwa at Mzimba Malawi.
REASONS FOR THE INDIRECT RULE
It was cheap: In the indirect rule system, the African administrators were paid little amount of money as wages. Also the system minimized African opposition hence cutting off the expenses the colonialists could use in handling uprisings.
Handling resistance: The Africans could hardly resist their native rulers. They respected their leaders; the Europeans took advantage of this circumstance. This situation made the Europeans perform their activities calmly.
Number and size of colonies: The British had a big number of colonies and many of them were very big in size. This demanded a big number of officials. The British couldn’t sustain these by themselves thus involved the African native authorities.
Tropical diseases: By that time, a big threat to the Europeans was Malaria and they had not yet discovered Quinine medicine for Malaria treatment. The malaria threat made the European not prefer working in Africa hence a need to use African natives as Administrators.
Inadequate personal: The British lacked enough administrators (professional administrators) due to the fact that they had many and big colonies in comparison to a number of skilled administrators. This problem could only be sustained by the use of African personnel.
Lack of communication: The colonies lacked the infrastructure networks, the countryside’s (interior parts) weren’t connected with the headquarters of the colonies. The British administrator had to find the ways of reaching the African kings who knew how to access their subjects and people (remoteness of the colonies)
Language barrier: Many European administrators couldn’t communicate through African languages. Thus problem could be handled by using African local rulers who knew how to communicate with their fellow Africans.
Flexibility: The system wasn’t provocative. It couldn’t provoke the natives to notice many new changes. The Africans were left to remain with most of the elements of their culture such as language, arts and so on, this situation made the British colonies to be calm and allow British economic activities to take place.
Easy mobilization of native labour: The Africans responded to the call of their leaders positively. This simplified easy mobilization of African labor and conducting various settlers and colonial government activities.
THE ELEMENTS OF INDIRECT RULE
In performing (implementing) the indirect rule, the African local rulers were assisted by the following administrative organs.
Native treasury. The native treasury was a body of natives mandated to collect tax from natives. They also handled the natives who neglected paying tax.
Native counts: They were made by the natives entrusted to handle various crimes committed by their fellow Africans. Examples of those crimes included land disputes, negation of tax payment etc.
Native legislatures: It was a body of natives entrusted to make laws to control the entire local area. These were the representatives of clans and other sects. For example the Lukiiko (the local parliament of the Buganda empire).
Native authority: It was the native body of executives under the local rulers such as kings, the royal family e.g. Banikulu of the Nyamwezi, the native police, soldier etc.
Example:
The native authority in the Buganda Empire
KABAKA {The overall in Charge of the Entire Kingdom}
KATIKILO {The native Prime Minister}
OMULAMUZI {The native Chief Justice}
OMUWANIKA {The native Chief Treasure}{The native Legislature}
CHIEFS {the Leaders of the Sazas in Buganda Kingdom}
THE PEOPLE {The common people}
THE STRUCTURE OF THE BRITISH
|
THE
KING or QUEEN |
In
Britain |
|
THE
BRITISH PRIME MINISTER |
In
Britain |
|
THE
BRITISH SECRETARY OF COLONIES |
In
Britain |
|
THE
GOVERNOR |
In
each colony |
|
THE
PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER |
In
each Province |
|
THE
DISRICT COMMISSIONER |
In
each District |
|
THE
WARD OFFICERS |
In
each Ward |
|
THE
PARAMOUNT CHIEFS |
In
each Ward |
|
THE
CHIEFS |
In
each Village |
|
THE
VILLAGE HEADMAN |
In
each Village |
|
THE
PEOPLE |
In
each Village |
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIRECT RULE
Existence of colonial state apparati: Such as police forces, soldiers, tax collectors, Lawyers in the courts, regional commissioners, district commissioners and others.
Existence of puppet regimes: The Africans native authority lost the pre-colonial time Sovereignty of deciding how to govern their subjects and the people. They were turned to be subjects of colonial masters.
Existence of new social stratification: The native local rules and their families were favored than the common people in the provision of social services. For example, there were special schools for royal native families’ children such as the Tabora School in which Julius K. Nyerere was formally educated.
Easy mobilization of African labor: The uses of the native authorities in governing made the Africans (natives) fail to notice big changes. The African local rulers were accepted by the ruled class, this simplified the mobilization of native labor in performing both settlers and government works such as building infrastructure, working in plantations etc.
Few (rare) cases of native guerilla uprising: The Africans respected their native leaders hence few resistances against them. The natives could endure the unbearable situation just for the sake of not trespassing their leaders whom they believed were connected to the spirits of their gods.
Ethnical division: Each tribe was left to continue with its used customs and traditions including their languages. This was because the system was too flexible.
Uneven development: The areas with strong native chiefs were highly favored by the colonial government than the areas with common people. The social services such as schools, hospitals etc. were closer to the areas near native chiefs (kings).
Existence of the warrant chiefs: these were the chiefs imposed by the British to administrate in the areas which had no permanent leaders. They were among the British paid officials.
THE IMPACT OF THE INDIRECT RULE IN AFRICA
Perpetuation of tribalism: The system was too flexible in such a way that the African customs and traditions were left inviolate, much more, the British made the African ethnical groups feel proud of their culture and consider it to be supreme than other cultures hence despise other tribes’ ways of life E.g. In Uganda, the Baganda were much Para mounted through their tribal rights in the Buganda agreement of 1900, this was followed by the Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole agreements.
The end of native’s sovereignty: The African state were no longer sovereign states due to the fact that, they were there to fulfill the orders from above (from the British). The African government acted as a path upon which the European desire to the natives go through.
Exploitation: The absence of African resistance made the white settlers perform their duties smoothly. The white settlers got enough cheap labor mobilized by the native authorities, the colonial government too didn’t incur much money in administering their colonies. The African local rulers acted as cheap administrators.
Social stratification: The system created the notable social, economic and political differences between the chiefs and their royal families, their subject, the normal peasants and so on. The ruling class was favored and respected by the British.
Transformation of peasant production: Through the indirect rule, the British used the African native rules to educate their fellow Africans about cash crops production. For example in Southern Uganda (Buganda). The British asked Katikiro Apollo Kagwa to spread cotton seeds and education in the area, this made Baganda transform their peasant production.
Uneven development in the same colony: The areas near the chiefs were highly favored by the colonial government. For example in Northern Nigeria where Sir Frederick Lugard initiated the system before other areas. Until today, the people Nigeria experience different economic, political and social differences. He established it in 1900 in the northern Nigeria and in 1912 it was spread to the southern part.
Strong (future) foundation of neo colonialism: today, most of the African political leaders are indirectly or directly used by the institutions of the developed countries to fulfill their economic, social and political motives; the African leaders do sign the bogus treaties with the developed countries and the multinational companies in favor of the foreign investors to Africa. It is a continuation of what happened during the indirect rule of the colonial times.
Note: Indirect rule was not only preferred by the British. The Germans too, used it to govern the areas of Rwanda and Burundi which were the parts of German East Africa. The reasons which drove the Germans to apply the system in Rwanda and Burundi included, well centralized state of Rwanda and Burundi formed by the HINDA dynasty and the descendant of the Chwezi, the collaboration of the native rulers of those areas with the Germans.
