The colonial footprints in Africa paint a bitter picture of socioeconomic exploitation and political repression, and at its heart are Britain and France. These countries operated different complex yet similar systems of colonial governance. To this end, unmasking their colonial games is necessary for a better understanding of how this complex chain of mechanisms impact the continent today.
Britain’s web
The 15th and 16th century marked an influx of colonial powers to Africa. By the early 16th century, the British under Queen Elizabeth I had deployed its ‘sea dogs’ (a group of notorious pirates) led by John Hawkins, whose duty initially was to attack and loot Spanish ships sent to Africa.
By 1564, the gang had changed its focus to capturing and selling Africans as slaves to the West Indies to work on plantations, the final products of which were sent to Britain in a triangular form of trade – a system of trade which became known as the transatlantic slave trade.
Experiencing the lucrativeness of the expeditions by the sea dogs, the queen decided to sponsor the rest of their missions. The colonial crown further institutionalized this act by establishing the Royal African company in 1672 under the authorization of King Charles II to exclusively carry out trade in looted resources in Africa such as gold, slaves, and ivory.
Until 1884, when the concept of effective occupation was adopted as part of the General Act of Berlin during the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, the British ambitions were not primarily territorial in nature, but rather to establish a web of trade posts dealing in looted objects in a barbaric black market. This covert system of looting was in later years transformed into the system of ‘indirect rule’.
France’s ‘mission’
However, the French fancied both territorial expansionism and trade in looted objects. This is proven by the establishment of the Saint-Louis trade post in Senegal in 1659 as part of a vision to create a North-West African dream with Senegal as its center.
The dream entailed establishing effective control over territories from West Africa including present day Cote d’Ivoire, Niger, Guinea, Burkina Faso, and Mauritania to territories in the north, such as Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco. To the French, this expansionist policy offered a competitive advantage in terms of trading in looted objects and spreading French language and culture as part of the ‘mission civilisatrice’ (civilizing mission), an idea that permeated French society’s 18th century Age of Enlightenment.
Indirect rule by the British vs. assimilation by the French
The differences in their visions propelled the colonialists into operating different systems of colonial governance. The British took a self-righteous position in abolishing the slave trade because it began to raise antagonism among the people.
However, under the guise of crushing leaders engaged in the slave trade, they covertly ceased the opportunity to depose political leaders such as Nana and Jaja in Nigeria who opposed British rule and had abolished the slave trade for trade in rubber and palm oil in the 1800s. This laid the foundation for the British system of indirect rule as it arguably instilled fear among opposing leaders and rallied support for British puppets. Through indirect rule, they governed the people through the elites and chiefs loyal to the British colonial crown.
The French had the governor general, appointed by a select committee in France, an Advisory Council which predominantly consisted of the French and appointed local governors who were Africans.
To ensure the people trusted the colonial government, the French granted citizenship to Africans who reached a certain level in language proficiency and cultural assimilation. These people were often referred to as ‘évolués’,meaning ‘those who have evolved’. They were seen as second-class French nationals, possessed limited civil and political rights, and were often subjected to racism. Africans were allowed to elect their own governors periodically from candidates selected by the French colonial government, and the ‘évolués’ in some instances, as in the case of Senegal, were allowed to elect their own representative to the French National Assembly. A notable example is Blaise Diagne, who served in the French National Assembly from 1914-34.
Despite inner differences in their colonial policies, the British and French authorities were flexible and often borrowed from each other. The British operated a formally similar system. There was the governor general, resident commissioners, Christian missionaries, colonial officers, chiefs, and colonial agents.
The chiefs and colonial agents were predominantly Africans, while the rest were British. The Africans were responsible for collecting taxes, fees for enrollment in the slave trade to capture their fellow Africans and sell them to the British. They also assisted in hearing complaints for colonial justice as well as the work of the Christian missionaries. This was important because the Christian missionaries provided schools to train the locals in line with British colonial policies. In the Gold Coast (modern Ghana), the Wesleyan Methodist missionary established the Mfantsipim boys school and the Wesley Girls’ High School for this purpose, and agents such as Reverend Thomas Thompson, an educator who wrote a pamphlet titled ‘The African trade for Negro slaves shown to be consistent with the principles of Humanity and Laws of revealed Religion in 1778’.
By employing this strategy, the British sought to maintain intermediaries to assist them instill trust in the colonial administration, avoid resistance, and reduce administrative cost.
In situations in which the French policy of assimilation encountered challenges, the French practiced a similar indirect system as in the case of French Sudan (present-day Mali). The highly Islamic-centered north in French Sudan rejected French culture, as they considered it to be contrary to their values. To address this, the French collaborated with the chiefs and elites to indirectly govern them according to the French colonial rules and consequently indirectly forced them to adopt French practices.
In a nutshell, the French policy of assimilation was geared towards creating second-class French nationals who would adhere to French values, culture, and instructions, while the British indirect rule policy sought to create ‘puppets on the string’ by allowing traditional rulers to maintain their culture while they govern the colonies through them.
Socioeconomic influence
The infrastructural development was strategically taken as part of a colonial policy. The Congo-Ocean Railway line, for instance, was constructed in the 1920s to transport timber and minerals from Congo-Brazzaville to the port of Point-Noire, to be exported to Paris.
In the Gold Coast, the British in 1898 began construction of a cargo railway line linking the Port of Sekondi to Tarkwa (a gold mining community in Ghana) to exploit minerals to be exported to Britain.
However, infrastructural developments were carried out by coerced Africans who had to work for free for some days in a year. The French, in particular, introduced the ‘prestation policy’, which involved 12 days of compulsory free labor of Africans for what was described as public works. Forced labor, including for juveniles, became so widespread that an international labor convention prohibiting it was signed in 1930, but the colonial powers blatantly ignored it. The French further extended this practice by compulsorily enlisting Africans in the Armee d’Afrique (African Army) and using them for these types of projects.
The British West African Frontier Force and the West African Force, on the other hand, were extensively used to suppress nationalist movements that opposed British rule and the imposition of taxes, such as the Hut Tax. This was a tax imposed on residents of British colonies to fund the colonial administration based on the size of their houses – that is, huts. In Sierra Leone, attempts to suppress dissent against this tax led to the Hut Tax War of 1898.
Did British and French ways of economic exploitation differ?
Despite the differences, there were stark similarities between the economic policies, as both economic mechanisms perpetuated a sense of dependency.
Different currencies – the British West Africa’s pound and the East Africa’s shilling, as well as the CFA Franc (Colonies Françaises d’Afrique) – were imposed on the colonies. By the beginning of the 20th century, both countries were operating through corporations, such as the French controlled Compagnie Francaise d’Afrique Occidentale (CFAO) and the British controlled United Africa Company (UAC), which was a subsidiary of the Anglo-Dutch company Unilever.
Africans were forced to form cooperatives to grow specific cash crops that the colonial states needed. The colonial corporations later fixed the price of these crops at a minimum, which were later exported to the colonial states. Secondary goods were later imported from the colonial states for the colonies by the colonial corporations at higher prices. This ensured two things. First, that the colonies remain ‘offshore plantations’ for the colonial power, and second, that the colonies remain economically poor while clamoring for secondary goods from the colonial power.
After French colonies had gained independence, France desired to keep these policies through series of agreements under an arrangement known as Françafrique. However, this created antagonism against Charles De Gaulle for several reasons, particularly his failure to provide justifications that resonated with the Africans. He created a sense of entitlement to the colonies that were determined to gain independence, as in the case of Guinea under Sekou Toure.
The efforts to become independent in 1958 and adopt its own currency angered the French government and led to ‘Operation Persil’. This was blatant sabotage by France to destabilize Guinea for voting for complete independence from France’s influence on three fronts. Economically – by flooding Guinea with fake banknotes to create hyperinflation, politically – through mass shipments of weapons into Guinea and transforming the opposition into paramilitaries to cause chaos and eventually overthrow the president, Sekou Toure. And lastly, socially – by destroying critical civilian infrastructure in Guinea, including telecommunications and sewage systems.
On the other hand, after a series of agitations with the colonies, such as the Gold Coast, Britain and other Western countries decided to grant power to the colonies to govern their own affairs to a large extent after gaining independence. By this, African states could adopt their own currencies as well as developing independent economic and security policies, but Britain maintained engagements with its former colonies through the Commonwealth of Nations. Through this, former colonies maintain British structures, such as language and common legal systems. Unlike France, Britain also strategically positioned its firms, such as De La Rue, as a better alternative to print currencies of its former colonies through commercial agreement rather than political intimidation.
Undoubtedly, despite the differences, both the French policy of assimilation and British indirect rule perpetuated a sense of dependency aimed to impoverish African colonies. The glaring effects of this barbarism are still deeply felt in Africa today.