Aprendizaje de los gestores

It took but a mere two decades to bring all of Africa, save Liberia and Ethiopia, under European control. However, it is a certain truth that there exists a vast difference between conquering a land and governing it. The challenge set before these imperialists was a great one, for not only was the newly acquired territory immense, in many cases with a sparse population, but the terrain was perilous. Though by the

78

early 1900s medical advances had made significant progress, death by disease was still not uncommon in the colonial service in Africa.

With all of these obstacles, how did Europeans endeavour to govern the peoples of West Africa? The first essential move was to delimit the colonial boundaries on the ground, an act which has undoubtedly influenced the current geopolitical reality of West Africa. One can examine the rise of the colonial state from two opposing perspectives, that of oppression (which has ramifications for the development of the post-colonial state) or that of opportunity. As we shall uncover below, either one in isolation does not effectively account for the reality of the colonial state. Viewing the age of high imperialism as mere oppression does grave injustice to the ingenuity of indigenous populations, and ignores the adaptability and mobility which existed in pre- colonial and colonial Africa, and its continuation in the wake of independence.

The colonial ‘control’ over Africa in the latter decades of the 19th century was indeed accomplished through a combination of treaties and military confrontations. Superior firepower in the form of machine guns, the maxim gun and canons, as well as surprise attacks and the exile of leaders led to the quick overthrow of empires. Despite the religious fervour behind the resistance of the Sokoto empire in Northern Nigeria, the emirs were brought to heel within a few years (Boahen, 1987, p. 50). Exile was the fate of such leaders as the Oyo of Benin, Samori Toure and asantehene Prempe I, the latter sent to the island of Mahé in the Seychelles, the home to a host of ‘uncooperative’ African kings (Adjaye, 1989, p. 234).

It is undoubtedly true that this fierce conquest left behind an impression of fear and resentment among many of the newly subjugated peoples. In one colony in particular, that of the Congo Free State under King Leopold’s rule, the brutality of the conquest led to the establishment of the concept of the Bula Matari (Young, 1994, p. 1). Describing the awe-inspiring and fear-laden impression of native peoples for Henry Morton Stanley, the push into the interior led to his nickname, Bula Matari, meaning

79

“he who crushes rocks” (Young, 1994, p. 1). This epithet quickly shifted to describe any agent of the burgeoning and brutal regime which existed under King Leopold. Furthermore, Belgian officials, themselves, began to use the title as synonymous for the state, for the fear it instilled among the population. Therefore, “a summons from Bula Matari was an order from the government” (Young, 1994, pp. 1-2).

Young uses this notion of Bula Matari and expands it to account for the various colonial states in Africa, and their legacies following independence. For our purposes in this chapter, our use of Bula Matari is solely as a conceptualization of the brutality and grievous exigencies of various colonial practices, and the mingled fear and resentment of subjugated populations in West Africa.

The Indigénat

Though the French bestowed upon Africans many privileges not accorded to their peers in the British colonies, the contrast between the elite African citizens and the lowly African subjects in the AOF was startling. As we have discussed above, citizens and assimilés were governed under a separate system of law, and possessed particular rights such as the vote. Subjects, on the other hand, did not fall under the purview of this privileged system, and were governed by an arbitrary system of law.

The indigénat, a penal system developed first in Algeria, and transplanted to French sub-Saharan Africa, instilled in local administrative officers a wide degree of power; a power that was easily abused (Hargreaves, 1967, p. 137). Under the indigénat, a subject was not accorded the right of Habeas Corpus, and could be arbitrarily imprisoned, fined, or deported, with no recourse to appeal or judicial review. Moreover, offences punishable by the indigénat could be defined by decree, at the whim of the administrative official (Hargreaves, 1967, p. 137). For quite obvious reasons, this was probably the most detested institution of French colonial power.

80

Conscription

Another practice was that of military service, and in the case of the French colonies following 1904, conscription, should voluntary recruits not be sufficient (Adloff, 1964, p. 177). Volunteers had served in various conflicts in the name of France, such as the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, and later in the two World Wars. In all cases, African soldiers fought not only within their own continent, but in France itself (Adloff, 1964, p. 177). During the First World War, conscription numbers sharply increased to accommodate the demands of war, with 80,000 Africans in active service by 1916. These men, however, were not all fighting, rather many of them also served in ancillary battalions, engaged in labour and factory duties (Adloff, 1964, p. 178).

In the case of the British, their approach to the use of Africans in the military took a very divergent path. Indeed, much of the policing in early colonial West Africa was undertaken by the Indian Army, for it was thought (at least initially) that the continent was not a place for “soldiering or manpower recruitment” (Killingray, 1979, p. 421). In fact, though the Royal West African Frontier Force (WAFF) had been operational by the outbreak of the First World War, they, as well as other African troops, were thought unreliable, and unfit for service outside of Africa (Killingray, 1979). However, the effect of two World Wars, and the stark changes of the international system in the first half of the 20th century led to a need for greater African military involvement. Though the Colonial Office vehemently opposed the involvement of African forces, the desperate need of manpower during the Second World War forced their hand, and troops were deployed in campaigns in Asia and the Middle East (Killingray, 1979).

Taxation

“J’ai vue des exemples de villages décimés par la maladie du sommeil continuant à payer depuis plusieurs années le même impôt que du temps

où la population était dix fois plus nombreuse” (Pieusserges cited in Asiwaju, 1976, p. 585)14

14

Translation: “I’ve seen examples of villages decimated by sleeping sickness, continuing to pay for several years, the same tax as at the time when the population was ten times more numerous.”

81

Taxation of West African colonies was a delicate balancing act for both France and Britain. By the early 20th century, the common fiscal opinion in Europe was that the colonies ought to be self-financing, to bear the burden of colonial administration and development. This led to the introduction of several forms of taxation, from import and customs duties, to direct taxation.

Customs duties had existed in both territories at the time of official colonialism, however the French had imposed capitation tax in Côte d’Ivoire from 1901. The British, on the other hand, chose to levy most of their taxes from imports, and avoided direct taxation in the Gold Coast until 1936 (Asiwaju, 1976, p. 584). Taxation, in itself, is not necessarily a form of oppression, for indeed the sums collected provide for infrastructure development and institutional upkeep. However, in West Africa, it has been argued, the taxation systems introduced were, at times, very unjust for several of reasons.

Firstly, there was the issue of representation. As we have noted earlier, only citizens of the French colonies, not its subjects, were accorded full rights and privileges. And yet, French subjects were required to pay this capitation tax, without the benefit of receiving the vote, or falling under the jurisdiction of French law. The same resentment is apparent in the British colonies, with a fierce resistance to Lugard’s suggestion that direct taxation ought to be implemented in West Africa. Dr. Nanka Bruce, in his speech dated 24 September, 1931 (five years prior to the introduction of direct taxation in the Gold Coast) had this response to offer:

We must not take the view of the Noble Lord [Lugard], no matter how experienced he may be. There is no need in this country to have direct taxation. In every country where direct taxation is imposed there must equal representation. I will only put this proposition: Is Government prepared to give this country full representation, and is Government prepared to give the control of our finances to the people of this country? If not, it is better that we remain

82

where we are and try to balance our budget in some other way. (Bruce, 1931, p. 632)

The second issue regarding taxation is illustrated by the quotation which began this section. The Inspector of Administrative Affairs, Mr. Pieusserges, noted the unfair implementation of the capitation tax, whereby members of the community who were deceased or had migrated were still included on the roll and the remaining population were responsible for providing the missing shares. This abuse of power by over- assessment led to a strong resentment on the part of the local populations, many of whom were unable to bear these fiscal burdens.

Forced Labour and Préstation

Apart from the indigénat, the system of préstation, or forced labour, was one of the most resented and detested policies of colonial administration in the AOF. In order to supplement the taxation system, all adult males were required to give up to twelve days a year of unpaid labour to the government (Hargreaves, 1967, p. 117). One could exempt oneself from this obligation through a cash exchange, however most subjects did not have the means to do so. The form that this labour took was generally local public works projects, road maintenance, and railway construction. Following the First World War, subjects could also be conscripted for paid labour in lieu of the mandatory military service (Hargreaves, 1967, p. 117). Though this form of ‘public service’ was defended from a standpoint of duty to the colony, the use of préstation for private enterprises is not so easily justified. It was not uncommon, for example, to use this unpaid labour for work on private planations, particularly in Côte d’Ivoire, “often under conditions which were not adequately subjected to administrative inspection or control” (Hargreaves, 1967, p. 117).

The British policy of forced labour has usually been spared this last criticism, a common distinction being that unlike their French contemporaries, the British used such labour for public works only (Thomas, 1973, p. 79). In the Northern Territories

83

Protectorate (NTP) of the Gold Coast, labour recruitment was frequent, due to the lack of export production. However, from 1906, government recruitment for paid labour in the southern mines began, and it is argued that this recruitment of ‘voluntary’ workers can be likened to a forced (paid) labour strategy (Thomas, 1973). Thomas (1973) demonstrates that the governmental recruitment campaigns on behalf of the privately owned mines did not so much induce volunteers, rather than intimidate chiefs into coercing recruits. These campaigns were conducted primarily in the NTP, and the officers in charge were required to meet the demands of a pre-set quota. Moreover, desertion on the part of these recruits was an enormous dilemma for the mine owners, the reasons for which were primarily due to poor treatment, ill health and deception, as most workers were not initially informed that they would be required to spend their days underground (Thomas, 1973).

Though it is arguable that the French policy in West Africa was more of an imposition than that of the British, colonialism was certainly not carried out in the most benevolent of fashions. The legal system, conscription, taxation and forced labour were all institutions of colonial oppression, which were met with varying degrees of indignation and outrage from the indigenous population. However, as we shall uncover below, these institutions were not merely accepted by Africans, and indeed the adeptness with which local populations circumvented and opposed these impositions provide a more complex picture of the colonial situation.