Narrativa como metodología

Salaam, and elsewhere in the European empires, laws -often, but not always, the product of distinctive western legal and cultural traditions- were framed by outsiders and imposed upon colonised subjects, their legitimacy in some cases resting solely on the threat of force. In urban centres in particular, colonial subjects were subject to local laws imported from European towns and cities; ones originally designed to impose municipal order amongst European urban communities, communities which were a part of the industrialised and more affluent societies of the west. In the attempt to assert a colonial order customary pursuits of local African populations were frequently criminalised; as were many subsistence activities adopted by Africans in the often harsh urban environment. In Dar es Salaam, for example, strict liquor laws prohibited the customary usage of alcohol, and municipal regulations severely restricted the number of people engaging in petty trade. Amongst the African population such legal restrictions commanded little or no acceptance. Indeed, even those which one may characterise as illegitimate, such as the theft of property, may not have been universally considered so amongst sections of the population who were perplexed -and perhaps aggravated- by the unequal distribution of resources in colonial society.5

Some officials acknowledged the problem. In 1932 one senior administrator stressed that ‘it must be remembered that there is no real moral turpitude or real criminality involved in breach of the hundred and one rules, regulations, bye-laws etc.’6 Alexander Patterson, who as Commissioner for Prisons in England and Wales visited East Africa in

1939, concurred with this point of view. He considered it was

in e v ita b le that crim e and c o n s c ie n c e sh o u ld n ot c o in c id e , w h e n a P en al C o d e that is fo u n d ed on a E u rop ean eth ic is im p o sed upon an A frican p eo p le, w h o s e id eas o f right and w ro n g are so c o m p le te ly differen t. M any acts d eem ed by the law to b e the m o st h ein o u s crim es are co m m itted from a h igh se n se o f duty. M any m ore little e v a s io n s are con stru ed by the law to be petty o ffe n c es, though the A frican can se e no harm in th em .7

Towards the end of the colonial period, Leslie observed the frustrations arising from certain municipal regulations:

A ll the restrictions w h ich se em to be aim ed at p reventin g a m an from m ak in g a fe w p en ce - n o h a w k in g w ith o u t a lic e n c e , n o b eg g in g , no three card-trick stan d s- are m ade by th e se

5 Leslie, Survey, p. 106.

6 Sec. min., 22nd September 1932, TNA/21041.

7 ‘Report on a visit to the Prisons o f Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Aden and Somaliland’, 1939, [hereafter: Paterson, ‘Report’], p .l, in TNA/27062

p eo p le [E uropeans] w h o co m b in e the three attributes o f b ein g rich, a lie n and in authority, all three sittin g d ucks for the frustrated, the d iscontented, the sim p le and b ew ild ered .8

In his 1957 survey of the town, Leslie detected widespread indifference towards crime in general amongst Dar es Salaam’s African inhabitants. In part he ascribed this to a general neglect of community interest. * [T]he instinct to help the victim [of a crime] and the forces of law and order’, he observed, ‘is simply not there.’9 The mutual communal responsibilities which characterised village life, according to Leslie, were lost on the move to town. In addition to the relative absence of notions of the public good, though, he also found that moral sanctions against criminal behaviour were also not particularly strong. ‘The pilferer, the thief, the embezzler,’ wrote Leslie, ‘are in the eyes of many -including themselves- hardly criminals but are ‘winning’ something which nobody will miss, and to which they are in any case in some way entitled.’10 There is evidence which supports Leslie’s conclusions. Throughout the colonial period officials bemoaned the lack of co-operation given to the police by the African public. Whether this can best be explained by the loss of communal responsibility, however, is another matter. Another theory, advanced at a meeting to discuss the theft of crops in 1941, is perhaps more convincing:

T h e A fr ic a n ... has in h is o w n cu stom s the prin cip le o f restitution and reparation for th eft or d a m a g e as fu n d am en tal, but it is n e g le c te d in B ritish p ractise and as a resu lt th e A frican p op u lation w ill not g iv e that co-op eration to the p o lice that is essen tia l i f law and order are to b e se cu re d .11

Also, the apparent indifference of the African population to the maintenance of order could more plausibly be attributed to a lack of commitment to colonial order, not order per se. Indeed, the harsh and instant justice which could be meted out by Africans to

criminals caught in the act was evidence of a dramatic lack of indifference.

In observing the relative tolerance of much criminal behaviour Leslie was on firmer ground. The ill-distributed wealth of colonial society could serve to endorse some unilateral redistribution; particularly at times of need. Thus Rajabu bin Alfani, complaining of low rates of pay in a letter to Kwetu, observed that ‘[m]any Africans are enduring without food for four or more days [per month], but for others who are not able

8 Leslie, Survey, p. 106. 9 Leslie, Survey, p.242. 10 Leslie, Survey, p. 109. U TS, 4 th July 1941, p.15.

to endure it is necessary to turn to crime.’12 Kondo bin Waziri, after being caught stealing a bicycle in 1942, endeavoured to justify a criminal career which up to then had stretched to six convictions for property offences over a twelve year period. He sought, remarked the presiding judge in his summary,

to e x c u s e h is life o f crim e by putting the blam e for it on other p eo p le. H e is co m p elled to steal for a liv e lih o o d , he says, b ecau se the p o lic e do not find him w ork w h en h e is released from prison. T h is particular theft, h e a lle g es, w as forced upon him by the N a tiv e authorities w h o w ere p ressin g h im to pay his tax. E ven w h en he has sou gh t to m ak e a liv in g by h on est to il in the fie ld s the bush p ig s h ave rendered his efforts nugatory by stea lin g h is crops by night, thus p rovin g the truth o f the old sayin g that there is n o honour a m on g th ie v e s .13

According to Leslie the prevalence of thefts by servants occurred partly as a result of a kind of redistributive impulse:

the servan ts in the h o u ses, w ork in g for a pittance, h ave to h and le m eat and fish and butter and drink and do w ith ou t th em selv es; their em p loyers h ave so m any sh ee ts and to w e ls and sh irts that th ey h a v e to be cou n ted , y e t i f o n e is m issin g there is th e d ev il to pay: w h y can n ot there b e m ore o f a share out? W hy d oes on e h ave to tak e o n e ’s cu t out o f fo o d by stealth instead o f by right?14

Corresponding with this general indifference towards crime, Leslie also observed that no real stigma seemed to attach itself to those who had been convicted of crimes and/or imprisoned.15

Leslie’s observations no doubt cany some weight. However, African attitudes towards crime in the capital were not undifferentiated. Most Africans in Dar es Salaam, sharing similar backgrounds and the same impecunious conditions of existence as offenders (the bulk of whom were opportunists and not recidivists), would probably not condemn the petty offences -such as shoplifting or theft from the workplace- which were the commonest form o f property crime in the town, nor would they condemn ‘social’ crimes such as gambling, hawking or mendicancy. However, also present in Dar es Salaam were a minority of Africans who, through education, employment or position, enjoyed a somewhat better standard of living than the majority of their compatriots. It seems that this petty bourgeoisie actually shared some of the anxieties about African criminality felt by Europeans and Asians. Although a minority, it was this group who were best placed to

12 Awe/wNo. 5, 26th March 1942, p.4. (Original in Swahili). 13 TS, 28,h August 1942, p.9.