The African continent is known to have abundant natural riches in many areas. Since the Iron Age, people from outside the continent have been attempting to establish economic ties with different regimes. Resources were transported to the north to be exchanged for goods from outside the region through northern empires like Egypt. In light of this, only the northern region was well known to the outside world. The remainder of Africa was still a mystery. However, there are accounts of a number of trades that utilized commodities like gold and African slaves. Before the 18th century, outsiders tried to form a mutual relationship with the people on the continent. The discovery of more unexploited resources on the continent changed in the 19th century. European powers began a scramble to colonize Africa. European countries saw a power vacuum in the continent and wanted to fill this in order to fulfil their political and economic interests. This led to many conflicts that were resolved at the Berlin Conference in 1884 (Chabal 202). European powers agreed on a formula of sharing out the continent. The countries established rule over the partitioned parts. Only Ethiopia and Liberia remained independent. To date, the partitions made by European powers still exist. Colonialization was characterized by efforts by colonizers to take full control of the continent with the locals resisting invasion. Eventually, the European powers had to give in to pressure grant independence to their colonies, with South Africa being the most recent country to establish self-rule. The two centuries of colonialism changed the political, social and economic status of the individual countries. The paper will examine how colonialization impacted these three aspects. Different powers adopted varying methods of ruling the continent. The paper will look at how each approach affected the development of various institutions on the continent. The essay prepones that colonialism led to the eradication of social, political, and economic institutions in the African societies. However, the European powers did not provide Africans with viable and practical alternatives and this is what has led to many problems that the continent faced, which the paper is going to examine.
Effects of Colonization on Social, Political, and Economic Development of African Societies
Before the entry of the European powers onto the continent, Africa was divided into thousands of social, economic, and political units based on ethnicity. Each of these units had its own system modelled and developed to fit the people. However, there existed few large kingdoms, such as Mali, Ashanti, Buganda, and the Kingdom of Kush. These kingdoms were mainly characterized by one strong leader who acquired control of the others through conquest (Hrituleac 1). These leaders were very powerful and wealthy. For instance, Mansa Musa I of Mali is still remembered to date as one of the wealthiest people that have existed in the history of humanity. Despite the conquest, there was no unification of the social, economic, and political systems (Englebert 13; Freund 246). The conquered communities observed their ways of life while paying tributes. They concentrated on providing the conqueror with resources, such as labourers, minerals, and agricultural goods, as a proof of respect.
The rulers on the African Continent were instrumental in the facilitation of early trade, especially slave trade. They could capture and sell some of their subjects of aid the foreigners in attacking rival communities to capture these slaves. Though some of the communities maintained strong mutual relationships with each, African was colonized by Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Some of the early European powers to make contact with Africa included Portugal through its explorer, Vasco da Gama. The Portuguese frequented the continent in an effort to find a route to India. They discovered that Africa had vast interior rich in natural resources. The process of occupying and partitioning Africa among the European powers took place between 1881 and 1914. Under colonialists, the natives did not access to resources that they had initially depended on for their livelihood. The natives were used to provide labor for the entities exploiting the resources. The local population was a market for finished goods from European countries. Raw materials would leave the countries at very little costs and finished goods brought in later at high costs (Ake 3). This made Africa a consumer economy. To date, many African countries are struggling to set up their own manufacturing plants. Minerals, agricultural products, and other resources still leave the countries in raw forms to be used in manufacturing in other continents. However, it is also important to note that colonization came with some positive economic effects. The colonialists put up infrastructure to support their interests. This included harbors, roads, and railways to facilitate exportation of goods to their own countries.
Many African societies fought fiercely to regain control of their resources and freedom from the colonialists (Heldring and Robinson 6). The military prowess of the Europeans helped them outdo the Africans. Annexation of African states took place at a period in history when countries preferred war as a way of settling their disputes and safeguarding their political and economic interests (Thompson 8). Most parts of the continent were under the control of European powers at the start of the First World War. The first major influence of the European powers on Africans was warfare. Initially, the Africans relied on guerrilla tactics because of their inferior weapons. While the Europeans were armed with firearm, the Africans relied on basic weapons, such as arrows and bows and machetes. Only a few African communities had old rifles. Europe had undergone the industrial revolution that saw its armies get equipped with deadly weapons. The Africans had to improve their warfare tactics to match those of the Europeans (Burnell et al. 105). As time moved, they mounted better resistance.
Different colonial powers had varying effects on the political setup of the African societies. The colonialists either used direct rule or indirect rule. The degree of involvement of the colonialists in local administration varied. The British applied indirect rule in its colonies. Communities in Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria and Tanganyika were allowed to maintain their rulers if they collaborated. These rulers were used for administration purposes at the grassroots. They reported to colonial administrators at the district, regional and national levels. The additional levels of government did not exist (Hrituleac 3). The British had to come up with these posts in order to ensure smooth running of the government.
The British were committed to preserving the natives’ social, economic and political systems rulers where the latter collaborated. The Buganda kingdom is one example of a strong collaborator. The Kabakas (kings) were accorded protection and the Britons improved infrastructure and gave technical assistance to the rulers and their subjects (Englebert 22). This kingdom exists to date, through it is considered ceremonial but recognized by the Ugandan government. The maintenance of these political institutions also supported that of social and economic ones. This was possible in communities with centralized forms of government that collaborated with the colonizers (Englebert 11; Michalopoulos and Papaioannou 2). The British had to come up with their own chiefs in areas where the political system was not centralised. The British entered pacts where they agreed not to interfere with the local communities in exchange for collaboration. This worked well for communities in East Africa where the British did not receive resistance. The Maasai people of Kenya and Baganda of Uganda still have their cultures intact despite the many years of British colonialism (Freund 187).
The colonialists were committed to ensuring that they take full control of the colonies. The British had to come up with a strategy to tame the regions that resisted its rule. Where the community leaders resisted their rule, the British could look for loyalists within or outside the community to administer it on their behalf (Chabal 30). One of the strategies was the divide and rule policy. This policy was also applied by other colonizers to weaken resistance. The colonizers sought to create tension and enmity between the communities so that they cannot assemble and resist colonization. Researchers’ attention was recently drawn to this policy after the Rwandan genocide. The genocide pitted two communities, Tutsi and Hutu, against each other. Historians trace the origin of the conflict to pre-colonial times where the neighbouring communities would compete for common resources. This animosity was utilised by the Belgian and Germans to weaken resistance during colonization. Many African countries still face challenges due to the divide and rule policy of the colonizers (Chabal 131). Politics and national resource allocation have been carried out on the tribal basis leading to numerous concepts on the continent.
The French decided to use a different approach from other European powers. Instead of using force to put the Africans under their control, they chose to give special recognition to those who took up their culture. The African Culture was considered as being backward and counter-productive (Thompson 12). Therefore, the French administrators encouraged the natives within the colonies to become civilized French Africans. This policy degraded the African culture and many people abandoned their ways of life and adopted French culture. There were very stringent terms that the Africans had to follow to become recognized as French citizens. These included being able to speak French fluently, winning certain awards and serving the French with dedication. Despite these conditions, France was not able to fund formal education for all the Africans in its colonies to ensure that they achieve this status (Englebert 12). Assimilation was an imperialist ideology rather than an objective to the French. It was meant to eradicate the pride and support that the Africans had in their political, social and economic systems. Once this pride is eroded, the Africans became submissive to the colonialist and thus the French faced little resistance.
Where the people were unlikely to collaborate, the French chose direct rule. This meant that they did not recognize the existing rulers and instead came up with their own system of administration. French Sudan, French Guinea, Upper Volta, Gabon, and Congo Brazzaville are some of the regions that initially showed reluctance to collaborate with the French. As a result, the colonizers chose to bring in their own administrators. These administrators were directly answerable to the minister of colonies in France. The efforts by the French to establish a centralized administrative system compromised almost all the aspects of African culture. The French modeled the colonies in a manner that belittled the African ways of life. An individual had to abandon their culture and become assimilated in order to receive recognition from the French (Englebert 12). Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy mainly faced resistance in their colonies. They thus had to come up with new administrative systems to replace the existing ones. The Africans had a hard time adapting to these systems. The fact that the colonial powers did not fully eradicate the African political and social organizations left confusion in many of the countries. By the time they were being granted independence, most of these countries did not have experience and knowledge on democracy, human rights, and constitutionalism (Chabal 4). This explains why many African countries have faced problems maintaining the rule of law and human rights.
The African continent was transformed from independent communities to nations in about four decades. It is important to note that most of the African nations are made up of communities that came together, not out of the interests and intention of the propel, but the need of the colonialists to administer the massive colonies efficiently. The national boundaries were drawn through agreements between the colonialists (Englebert 9). The African communities did not see the need to unite and form strong political systems. The actions of the colonialists against the will of the people led to the formation of the current countries. Consolidation of Africa societies into nations is a process that should have been left to the African people themselves. This would have led to the unification of communities on the basis of shared ideologies and interests, just like in the case of other countries in the world. While the Europeans placed communities in certain nations, they sought to divide them lest they unite and resist colonization.
Conclusion
Generally, colonialists tried to eradicate the existing social, political and economic institutions in the African societies. The major interest that drove European powers into scrambling for and partitioning Africa were economic due to the unexploited natural resources on the continent. These resources were given to individuals, private or public entities for exploitation. Land was given to foreign companies, which were expected to pay taxes to the colonialist and ensure that they create jobs back at home by availing raw materials for the industries at home (Ake 2). Africa was turned into a consumer economy because all the resources did not support local production. Colonization eradicated many social institutions in the African culture. Before this period, the African people had their own beliefs, religion and ways of life. Europeans, especially the French, tried to make Africans feel that their culture was inferior. Other European powers tried using force to achieve this course. There were many conflicts between the natives and the colonizers when the latter applied force to have Africans deviate from their culture. The application of indirect rule by the British led to the recognition of African culture in many of its colonies (Heldring and Robinson 14).
Works Cited
Ake, Claude. Democracy and Development in Africa. Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
Burnell, Peter, Vicky Randall, and Lise Rakner, eds. Politics in the Developing World 4e. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Chabal, Patrick. Power in Africa: An Essay in Political Interpretation. Springer, 2016.
Englebert, Pierre. "Pre-colonial Institutions, Post-colonial States, and Economic Development in Tropical Africa." Political Research Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, 2000, pp. 7-36.
Freund, Bill. The Making of Contemporary Africa: the Development of African Society since 1800. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Heldring, Leander, and James A. Robinson. Colonialism and Economic Development in Africa. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
Hrituleac, Alexandra. "The Effects of Colonialism on African Economic Development." Business and Social Sciences, http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/41656700/Alexandra_Hrituleac_thesis_1_DEBashinjaga%20amahanga%20ko%20%20%20ntacyo%20yabamariye%20ahubwo%20ngo%20akomeza%20kubakangisha%20imfashanyo.pdf.
Michalopoulos, Stelios, and Papaioannou Elias. “Pre-Colonial Ethnic Institutions and Contemporary African Development.” Econometrica : Journal of the Econometric Society, vol. 81, no. 1, 2013, pp. 113–152.
Thomson, Alex. An Introduction to African Politics. Routledge, 2016.
