LECTURE 5

BRITISH AND FRENCH ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES IN WEST

AFRICA
British and French administrative policies in West Africa were different in name but largely
served the same purposes. Both policies were meant to benefit the colonialists in the
extraction of raw materials and exploitation of the African labour force. They were also
meant to marginalise the Africans in all aspects of social, economic and political spheres.
They were also meant to marginalise the Africans in land ownership and education. The two
imperial power’s policies were based on racial superiority and the same ideological
background. Both believed that their races were superior and saw Africans as inferior,
backward in all their institutions: social, political and economic development. Nonetheless,
while their policies demonstrated a lot of resemblance and similarities in their objectives,
they were also some variations in their execution. The French administrative was meant to do
away with the African culture. The British used structures that were already there in Africa
while the French were determined to destroy existing traditional structure, introduce new
chiefs and new structures.

French Assimilation

The policy was meant to turn the Africans mainly through Western education into black
Frenchmen (evolves) who would be accorded all the rights and privileges enjoyed by French
citizens. To become a French citizen up to about 1946, one must have been born in any of the
four communes in Senegal, Saint Louis, Goree, Rufisque and Dakar, merit a position in
French service for 10 years, provide a means of character and possess a means of existence
of decoration and a with military award. When one became a French citizen he was subjected
to French law and had access to French courts.

The French policy of Assimilation was influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution
(1789). The French believed that all men were equal. They also made a declaration which
conferred the right of a French citizenship in every inhabitant of a French colony. In doing
so, the French believed in the superiority of their culture and civilisation over that of the
colonised peoples.

The policy seemed to work well in Senegal were the Senegalese were even given the right to
select a representative called a Deputy to the French National Assembly in Paris. The policy
of Assimilation did not conceive overseas extensions of the French rule as colonies but as
extensions of France. In this regard, the colonies were to be treated a part and parcel of
France.

In Senegal, the French system of local government was based on Communes. Each
Commune had a council of leaders elected by all the adult males resident in the commune.
The inhabitants enjoyed the same civil and political rights as Frenchmen. Africans born in
other French colonies could only be treated as French citizens if they could read and write
and speak the French language well. Africans born in communes of Senegal became
automatic French citizens and also became citizens by right of birth and they were called
aniginaries. This policy was not uniformly applied in French colonies as citizens in other
French colonies such as Ivory Coast, Guinea, Dahomey, the inhabitants never really enjoyed
the French policy of Assimilation.

The French system of Assimilation however came under heavy attack from French business
interests who viewed it as a threat to labour and the exploitation of resources from the French
colonies. Thus the French policy of Assimilation was not entirely successful since the French
were afraid that the assimilated Africans could become serious economic rivals. In the end
the French realised that full scale Assimilation was neither possible nor desirable hence they
switched to the policy of Association. Policy was becoming increasingly difficult to apply

Association

When the policy of Association was introduced, it implied that the French no longer forced
the African people to adopt the French culture and civilisation. The French also began to
recognise the importance of governing the colonial people through their traditional political
institutions. (that is, through chiefs and village heads).

The French used a highly centralised administration of government. The system was based on
two types of administrations on the colonial inhabitants. The first were the inhabitants of the
Communes were the French were regarded as the citizens. The other people were from the
other colonies of France who were regarded as subjects and these people were not actually
assimilated to France. Against those people, the policy of Association was a big threat since
French civil and criminal law did not apply to them. Again, they came under the summary
judicial system known as the indigenant which did not did not apply to French citizens. The
indigenant was very harsh on the Africans as it violated their rights as they could be
subjected to arbitrary arrests and summary trials at the hands of the administrative officers. In
addition indigenant, subjects were also forced to serve for longer periods of time in the army
than the citizens. Through the policy of Association, the French were now able to obtain raw
materials from their French colonies and benefiting to a large extent. The policy was very
exploitative

British Administrative Policies

The British used both Direct and Indirect rule in British West Africa. However, the British
were very quick to switch from Direct to Indirect rule in West Africa (WHY?????????????).
The British like the French believed that their culture and social institutions were the best in
the world.

Direct Rule

The British direct rule was very expensive to run like the French Assimilation. It was no
longer fulfilling the British objectives of colonising Africa. It was formulated by Maclean in
the Gold Coast where a scheme of British ideas of justice and administration were to be
adapted to suit Africans who lived in the traditional societies. The policy was administered
directly through the British District officers. The system was eventually abandoned because
the British realised that most administrative decisions and laws were to be made within the
colony itself rather than by the colonial office and Parliament in London.

Indirect Rule

The British settled early for a policy of administration for which local African institutions
were to play an active role. The British claimed that under the system of Indirect rule they
would not rule their West African subjects directly but through the local chiefs and elders by
whom the people were to be governed. This was largely evident in Northern Nigeria. Indirect
rule was cheap for the British because the salary of the chief was far much less than that of
the abaritish officials. The Indirect rule was popularised in Gambia, Gold Coast and Sierra
Leone where the traditional rulers were no more than the head of the social and political
structures but rather subordinates of the British overlords who used the to supplement British
unpopular policies such as paying taxes, compulsory labour and military enlistment during
the Second World War. Indirect rule was considered to be the best based on the false theories
that the British culture and social institutions were the best in the world and that their African
subjects were so backward that they could not benefit from the introduction the highly
developed British institutions. It was again based on the false theories that political power
would transferred to the blacks once they had become civilised to rule themselves. Thus
under the system of Indirect rule, African traditions and customs were to be preserved as
much as possible.

Besides being preserved African institutions were to be improved so that they could be used
for the implementation of government policies. The powers were of the chiefs were to be
reinforced and preserved. However the system of Indirect rule never really worked in many
parts of British West Africa since the British in reality interfered with the African systems to
a greater extent. To maintain their policy of Indirect rule, chiefs who were ineffective and
uncooperative in the eyes of the British were quickly removed from their posts. They then
appointed chiefs (warrant chiefs) who had never been chiefs and did not even belong to the
chieftainship line. These were given excessive powers.

Conclusion

The two administrative policies were different because under Assimilation the assimilated
could rule and make laws while under direct rule, Africans had no say in the running of the
colony. Important to note that these policies were only different in name but practically the
same. HOW DIFFERENT WAS THIS FROM THE FRENCH?. The appointees were loyal to
the colonialists. The British system of Indirect rule was similar to the French policies in the
sense that both were exploitative to the Africans; based on collection taxes, acquisition of
compulsory labour, etc. Both policies marginalised Africans through discrimination in
education and landownership. If anything they led to the underdevelopment of Africa.
(EXPAND ON THIS). However, these policies were also different in that the French wanted
to do away with the African way of life while the British wanted to preserve it to some
extent. Chiefs (canton chiefs) under the French had far much less power than those in British
West Africa. They controlled neither the police nor the prisons. The chiefs under the British
used part of the taxes collected to finance their own administration while the Chiefs under the
French handed the whole amount to central government. According to Afgbo, it is
northwhile that ultimately, the British and French methods had the same results as the both
caused African chiefs to loose their traditional character. They became independent of their
people and instead, came to depend on their colonisers.