You are on page 1of 8

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr.

Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

Were colonial chiefs decentralised despots?

Mahmood Mamdanis controversial belief that colonial chiefs in Africa were decentralised despots1 is so pejorative that it is not surprising it has invited criticism. Despite this though, he is still grappling with an important idea: where the loci of power and authority were in colonial Africa. It is an intensely debated subject but it seems that essentially a synthesis of the two extreme versions of chiefly power is the most accurate. Chiefs were not always decentralised despots, sometimes they portrayed both traits concurrently, sometimes neither, and sometimes one or the other. Examinations upon regional and local lines demonstrate that they held considerable autonomy over their subjects, but that at the same time, exterior mechanisms of power were also at work in many colonial places in Africa. The three arguments examined here are: Mamdinis belief that they were decentralised despots, a more synthesised argument that perhaps they were more intermediaries between colonial governments and the people, and finally that perhaps colonial government held real authority. In the end, chiefs seem more negotiators-in-chief than decentralised despots.

In Citizen and Subject, Mamdani illustrates that both indirect and direct rule are benign terms; both were actually variants of a despotism. While direct rule denied rights to subjects on racial grounds, indirect rule incorporated them into a customary mode of rule, with state-appointed Native

Mahmood Mamdani, Citizen and Subject (Princeton, 1996), p. 38. 1

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr. Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

Authorities defining custom.2 Eventually, the French and others followed the British model of indirect rule, a state form known as decentralised despotism. Pre-colonial Africa was a continent where noble savages lived freely and without restraint,3 and two forms of chief existed (traditional and administrative.) According to Mamdani, it was not until the colonial period that the administrative chief emerged as the full-blown village-based despot, shorn of rule-based restraint.4 They assumed a model [that] was monarchical, patriarchical, and authoritarian.5 Colonial rule presumed a king at the centre of every polity, a chief on every piece of administrative ground, and a patriarch in every homestead or kraal.6

What turned pre-colonial Africa where traditional chiefs functioned in an advisory and consultative context7 into village-based patrimonial societies with a colonial chief at the apex was a colonial reliance on the administrative form of chiefly appointment. This introduced a highly bureaucratic command-and-control system in which chiefs acted with increasing autonomy. There was a changing relationship of popular (clan) and administrative (state) organs from the precolonial to colonial period and it is illustrated by the example of Botswana. In pre-colonial Botswana an institution called the kgotla existed, a place where the community met to discuss openly issues of common interest with the chief.8 Although women and subject nationalities werent allowed to participate in debates, it represented a check on the authority of the chief. With the advent of colonial rule however, a decentralised arm of the colonial state grew to prominence; it was called the Native Authority, and comprised of a hierarchy of chiefs. These Native Authorities manipulated administrations to utilise Native Courts to turn writ into law. In effect, this made

2 3

Mamdani, Citizen and Subject p. x. Ibid., p. 39. 4 Ibid., p. 43. 5 Ibid., p. 39. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., p. 45. 8 Ibid., p. 46. 2

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr. Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

chiefs decentralised despots, and the scope of [their] agency9 is exemplified through the regime of extra economic coercion that chiefs instilled over their subjects. In 1891 the Natal Native Code in South Africa specified the ends to which powers of the chief may be used. They had the power of summoning the prompt supply of men for purposes of defence, or to suppress disorder or rebellion, or as labourers for public works.10 And it was not only in South Africa that chiefs enjoyed powers of extra economic exertion. They were systemic throughout colonial Africa; in 1900 the Buganda Agreement specified the upkeep of roads as a task to be assumed by the chief, along with the collection of taxes.11 Furthermore, in Nigeria, it was cited by Padmore that many chiefs were decentralised despots as they regularly collected taxes and colonial officials seldom interfere[d] as long as chiefs collect[ed] the amount of taxes assigned to them.12

Aside from the economic sanctions a chief could impose, the conflation of his private wealth and that of the stools has also been seen as a sign of decentralised despotism. What this merging meant was that whatever the chief did with his resources was, by definition, for the stools benefit and this resulted in a lack of accountability (decentralisation), and despotic behaviour for those that decided to indulge in it. Chiefs turned position into wealth and wealth into power.13 Some have cited that by virtue of a chiefs office, he had to provide food and drink for those who visited him, reward the services of his subjects, and distribute presents at religious festivals.14 On the face of it, a redistribution of wealth, but this didnt depend on a chiefs individual altruism, in reality it flowed from the structural logic inherent in different village constitutions (the example used is Asante.) Therefore, even in cases when chiefs proclaimed to be acting in the interests of the people, they were often only following constitutional precedent. In 1912, District Commissioner Fuller
9

Mamdani, Citizen and Subject p. 52. Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., pp. 52-53. 13 Frederick Cooper Africa Since 1940: The Past of the Present (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 24. 14 Sara Berry, Chiefs Know Their Boundaries: Essays on Property, Power, and the Past in Asante, 1896-1996 (Oxford, 2001), p. 41.
10

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr. Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

proclaimed that chiefs would use their rents15 to maintain roads in Asante. However, twenty years later, his successors were still trying to convince chiefs and superiors that the cocoa tribute for land access ought to be treated as a form of public money.16 In the case of finance then, chiefly rule seemed to be wholly unaccountable and self-interested.

In certain regions, however, chiefs can be seen as intermediaries between state and people, rather than fully fledged decentralised despots. Whilst this role had aspects of decentralisation, it was more concerned with chiefs as mediators rather than agents of historical forces; perhaps negotiators-in-chief is a more appropriate term. Kumese Chief Frimpon was literate in English and managed to use this to his advantage as a negotiator. He took full advantage of his position to wield influence over both Asantes and their colonial rulers. For example, in 1915 Chief Frimpon won a case over Atipinhene Kweku Dua about land in Ahwia. Frimpon claimed the land had always been his, whilst Kweku Dua believed Frimpon had sold the land to the then Asantehene, who gave it to the Atipin stool from whom he claimed rights. The dispute was taken to the provincial commissioner, but partly because of his ability to speak English and persuade, and because he had decided to clear the roads,17 the decision was ruled in Frimpons favour. Frimpon had gone above and beyond his responsibilities as a chief to persuade the provincial commissioner, a trait that it seems was essential if chiefs were to maintain their power. This idea of negotiator-inchief is something that Spear recognises as being more aligned with recent historiography. After all, colonialism was not a unilateral political phenomenon colonial authorities sought to incorporate pre-existing polities, with their own structures of authority and political processes into colonial structures.18 It was not unheard of for governments to use chiefs as proxies for disputes with locals; Marshall Clough believed that chiefs had to balance the demands of the D.C. and the
15 16

Berry, Chiefs Know Their Boundaries: Essays on Property, Power, and the Past in Asante, 1896-1996 p. 42. Ibid. 17 Ibid., pp. 21-22. 18 Thomas Spear, Neo-Traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British Colonial Africa in The Journal of African History (Vol. 44, No. 1, 2003), p. 4. 4

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr. Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

wishes of the people.19 Ultimately, chiefs trod a fine line between traditional obligations and colonial demands to collect tax20 if they were to remain in favour.

Frederick Cooper in Africa since 1940 actually promotes attempts to solidify the power of chiefs who could represent people in large regional groupings21 under colonial rule. This represents a totally inverted interpretation to the pervasive one presented by Mamdani, one in which colonial authorities retained real autonomy, and utilised chiefs more as puppet rulers because it was convenient to have people concentrated in large settlements under the effective control of powerful chiefs.22 British officials had the power to appoint and depose chiefs23 if they didnt comply with what they had been mandated to do: raise revenue, [and] spend money on public facilities such as roads, latrines and clinics.24 Geschiere furthers this idea of colonial hegemony, stating, to all colonial rulers it soon became a matter of policy to rule new subjects through indigenous chiefs.25 Sir Frederick Lugards policy of indirect rule places ultimate power with colonial government, and nuances in the segmented Bakweri society demonstrate that the goal to rule through chiefs26 was harder than initially thought in practice, and chiefs played on tradition, yet, ultimately, British support was where decision making lay. In Bakweri, the central figure was Kuva, king of Buea, who became chief of the Bakweri district. He had gained military ascendary over rivalry villages after humiliating encroaching German forces in 1891. However, three years later the Germans succeeded in their conquest and Kuva died, the Germans installed Endeley I (Kuvas son) as chief after his death. After Germany lost World War I in 1918, Bakweri was annexed by Britain, who appointed Lifafa Endeley II (Endeley Is son) as chief following an
19 20

Spear, Neo-Traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British Colonial Africa , p. 10. Ibid., p. 9. 21 Cooper, Africa Since 1940: The Past of the Present p. 59. 22 Sara Berry, No Condition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-Saharan Africa (University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 26. 23 Ibid., p. 35. 24 Ibid. 25 Peter Geschiere, Chiefs and Colonial Rule in Cameroon: Inventing chieftaincy, French and British style in Africa: Journal of the International African Institute (Vol. 63, No.2, 1993), p. 151. 26 Ibid., p. 158. 5

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr. Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

interlude in rule after Endeley Is retirement. However, Friedrick Motinda, the leader of rival Wondongo quarter argued chieftaincy belonged to his family, as did the people of Soppo. Both parties went to extremes with their claims; Motinda even hired a British lawyer. However, eventually the British government supported Endeley Lifafa IIs position, despite his alleged incompetency. It seems that British support guarantee[d] the future of the Endeley dynasty.27 Therefore, ultimate sovereignty of power lay with colonial governments, not individual chiefs, making it impossible for them to be despots.

Furthermore, in colonial Asante, disputes based on the British land policy there reveal that it was difficult for chiefs to assess allegiances from subjects. As a result, wider, structural forces rendered their formal authority obsolete, with colonial powers retaining the real force of government. In colonial Asante there was a simultaneous and contradictory process of codification and proliferation of narratives about the past28 which steeped all disputes over land in historical precedent, ones in which colonial governments had the final say. In 1906 Edwesohene Yaw Awuah claimed that land known as Ahiresu was his based on the fact his ancestor had killed the landlord Kwatchi Depoah in Opohu Wares reign (1700 1750). However, his claim was challenged by headman Wuameihi who claimed that Kwatchi Depoah was killed by one of his connections. The court, overseen by colonial officials, ruled in favour of Wuameihi despite the local chiefs desire for Edwesohenes claim to be successful.29 Here, the colonial power seems to have acted arbitrarily, superseding the local chiefs wishes. Moreover, it was made clear in Asante that whilst colonial powers were keen to establish a stable hierarchy,30 they didnt want to force Asantes to live under a chief whom they didnt like. This allowed relocations, authorised by the British government, which gave rise to disputes from chiefs over subjects running away and other chiefs

27 28

Geschiere, Chiefs and Colonial Rule in Cameroon: Inventing chieftaincy, French and British style p. 160. Berry, Chiefs Know Their Boundaries: Essays on Property, Power, and the Past in Asante, 1896-1996 p. 10. 29 Ibid., p. 8. 30 Ibid., p. 7. 6

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr. Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

stealing subjects. The seriousness of this is exemplified by the litany of enquiries. Eventually colonial admissions attempted to codify a set of hitherto lucid and malleable set of traditions, which many subjects were exploiting using colonial rule. By trying to impose a Western set of rules onto the Asante way of life, Meyer Fortes (1948) believed a culture of litigation emerged, which demonstrated the incompatibility between the old social structure and modern development. A chief was no longer primarily the servant of the community and their intermediary with the ancestors: he was much more the servant of the White Man.31

There were various nodal points of power in colonial Africa. Chiefs were among colonial authorities, hereditary monarchies, wealthy nobles and other citizens in exerting power and influence. Mamdani fails to appreciate that chiefly rule in colonial Africa was regional, some chiefs controlled the spoils of the colonial system, whilst some were powerless.32 Chiefly rule was characterised by a complex web of different interlocking levels of power strata. They were by no means the only agents determining the course of African history in the colonial period; they were negotiators-in-chief most of the time whilst locked into a symbiotic relationship with colonial governments. After all, colonies needed the chief, as their rule [was] deeply rooted33 for many Africans, but chiefs needed colonial powers, because without their assent they would simply be dismissed.

WORDS: 1996

31 32

Berry, Chiefs Know Their Boundaries: Essays on Property, Power, and the Past in Asante, 1896-1996 p. 39. Thomas Spear, Mountain Farmers (University of California Press, 1997), p. 4. 33 Spear, Neo-Traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British Colonial Africa p. 7. 7

Charlie Walker The Making of Modern Africa: HIST1491 Dr. Christopher Vaughn & Miss Nicki Kindersley

Bibliography

Berry, Sara, Chiefs Know Their Boundaries: Essays on Property, Power, and the Past in Asante, 1896-1996 (Oxford, 2001) Berry, Sara, No Condition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-Saharan Africa (London, 1993) Cooper, Frederick, Africa Since 1940: The Past of the Present (Cambridge, 2002) Geschiere, Peter, Chiefs and Colonial Rule in Cameroon: Inventing chieftaincy, French and British style in Africa: Journal of the International African Institute (Vol. 63, No. 2, 1993), pp. 151175. Mamdani, Mahmood, Citizen and Subject (Princeton, 1996) Spear, Thomas, Neo-Traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British Colonial Africa in The Journal of African History (Vol. 44, No. 1, 2003), pp. 3-27. Spear, Thomas, Mountain Farmers (Oxford, 1997). Willis, Justin, Hukm: the Creolization of Authority in Condominium Sudan in Journal of African History 46 (Cambridge, 2005)

You might also like