Introduction
The Western Europeans colonized Africa and other Middle East countries. The leading colonies were the British (Anglophone) and the French (Francophone), whose rule can still be felt to date in their former colonies. Although the primary purpose for France and Britain to participate in colonialism was to exploit resources in their colonies, these two countries used a different approach to leadership and association with the locals. Taking the case study of Nigeria and Gabon, the slave trade was a priority for both colonial powers, who wanted cheap human resources to work in their farms and increase their production (Kesselman et al. 14). In Nigeria, the British applied an indirect system of governance where the local chiefs were allowed to rule on behalf of the whites. Conversely, in Gabon, the French formed the government from the grassroots level and wanted the locals to assimilate and look like the French. Therefore, the essay aims to analyze similarities and differences in the legacies made British and French colonial rule.
British rule in Nigeria
The British colonial rule in Nigeria started under intensified policies in the slave trade in West Africa. The Portuguese pave the way for the British to take control of the slave trade and allow African leaders to obtain spices and weapons from the colonial master. Britain gained complete control over Niger by taking control over the Royal Niger Company and its territories in the lower regions of River Niger, thus, creating the Protectorate of Northern and Southern Nigeria. The indirect rule in Nigeria that Sir Frederick Lugard introduced played an essential role in British rule over Nigeria (Chiazam 274). The indirect rule enabled the local leaders to govern themselves but under the orders and influence of the British government. The rule enabled the British to profit from the economy of Nigeria by exporting different crops like palm oil, peanuts, and cocoa. The divide-and-rule policy used by the British in Nigeria helped in keeping different Nigerian ethnic groups. The divide-and-rule policy led to the establishment of Islamism in the north and Christianity in the south.
Nigeria became independent on October 1, 1960, after successfully fighting colonial rule for years. Several changes accompanied British rule during the colonial era. The period was marked by intensified institutionalized local governments, which were essentially left in the hands of traditional chiefs and other rulers. Although many built-in contradictions marred the new rule, it resulted in a well-developed and sophisticated form of government under the native administration. The indirect rule made the British governors and ensured the conservation of the ethos of the locals (Matasci et al. 54). Additionally, retaining local elites as local leaders in Nigeria was in line with the British conservatism ideology, which noted that leadership and dominance are hereditary. The local leaders were easily understood by the locals, therefore, helping the British to have a good deal of continuity. Consequently, this was the greatest secret to the success of British rule in Nigeria.
The legacy that Britain left on the economic system in Nigeria was negative. The colonial rule had no gainsaying and contribution to the development of the African economy. However, the process contributed immensely to under-development in Africa. Colonialism was a sign of robbery by the Europeans to rob Africans of their natural resources (Chiazam 84) The British penetrated Nigeria and created some fundamental affinities which enabled them to control the development of the economy through the expansion of the colonial trade. Most economic policies were geared toward benefiting the British, leading to the establishment of the capitalist systems (Gatwiri et al. 92). Consequently, most African nations achieved political independence without economic independence. The latter has led to neo-colonialism because Nigeria is still tied to the apron string of Britain, which has dominated the multinational corporations in Nigeria, leading to a high level of economic dependency.
Nigeria also had some positive improvements from colonial rule. Nigerian economy during the colonial period was inherently based on exports of cash crops planted in various places in the country. As a result, the British colonial masters introduced infrastructural development in the country after taking control of the economy. These colonial masters spearheaded the introduction of electricity networks, seaports, bridges, rail lines, and roads in selected areas (MĂĽller-Crepon 713). People in the pre-colonial period used traditional modes of transport like animals and even walking on foot. However, the notion changed when the British took control of the country and started to bring infrastructural changes to impact the lives of Nigerians.
French rule in Gabon
The French administration in Gabon resulted from British domination in manufacturing and trading in the Gulf of Guinea. French opted to actively compete with the British, who had taken a frontline in the commercial sphere in most parts of West Africa. French control in Gabon faced little opposition, but a lot of trade interference in a standard trading system, tax collection, and labor taxes led to resistance. The French developed a policy from 1898 to 1914 to develop Gabon’s economy through a concessionary and promote agricultural production and trade (Kesselman et al. 27). The country was highly influenced by the assimilation system that the French administration employed to change the Gabonese and become part and parcel of the French. The latter made the French develop a close relationship with Gabon, thus, making the country incorporate the French language and culture under the influence of the Roman Catholic missionaries.
The main reason for the French colonizing Western Africa was purposely to turn these nations into French states. The latter incorporated change in their living styles, making French the official language and the population convert to Christianity. The direct rule applied by the French administrators in Gabon enabled the colonial power to influence the country. It made the people in Gabon feel like the French people in Western countries (Carotenuto 167). The act led to an immense change in African culture because assimilation had taken center stage in converting Africans to become more like the French than fellow Africans. Most French colonies like Gabon are still under the influence of assimilation because most of their understandings are based on the stooges of the kings of all democratic dictatorships.
The French administration in Gabon led to the disarticulation of the economy. Despite using a direct administrative style in Gabon distorted the economic patterns and development in various parts of Gabon and interfered with the country’s economic development because the French administration had an objective of taking away the rich natural resources from the country. Although there was enhanced production in the country, these goods could not help in developing Gabon because they were taken to European countries at the expense of Africans (Carotenuto 168). The period was marked by a pattern of international labor division, which the French practiced to disadvantage Africans. The people of Gabon were not allowed to participate in producing raw materials or the manufacturing sectors. The raw materials in Gabon were taken at a lower price while the manufactured from abroad were sold at a high price. The situation indicates how the French administration affected the economic prosperity of Gabon during the colonial period. Therefore, the situation above portrays how the French administrative system accounted for the impoverishment of Gabon’s economic status.
Furthermore, the French administration established and institutionalized classes among the people of Gabon. The French divided Africa into different groups, with those fully assimilating into French culture topping the ranking. The assimilated individuals enjoyed similar privileges as the French and could attend French schools quickly. These people were also given leadership positions and were required to rule under the guidance of the French Empire. However, the division brought an aspect of class struggle in the socio-economic and political development of the people of Gabon because the assimilated Africans acted like a conveyor belt and spearheaded various agendas of the French community (Chiazam 280). Despite various challenges that most people in Gabon faced under the leadership of Gabon, it is evident that the assimilation process helped in promoting a better friendship and understanding between the French and the West. This aspect made many people become French citizens.
Similarities and Differences between British and French Administrations
The goal of colonialism for both the British and French was universal. The main objective of these two colonial masters was to extract economic prosperity from their colonies. The imposed mode of rule by these governments limited the rights of their colonies. Both colonial administrations established a tough complementary economy founded on exporting raw materials from the colonies and later importing finished products (Dupraz 44-46). The culture played a fundamental role in impoverishing the economy of Africa and other European colonies under their colonial rule. In both rules, colonies were not allowed to carry out commercial activities but were to offer free and cheap labor for the colonial master. Most European colonies’ poverty level can be attributed to the administrative styles applied to deprive Africans of their rights. To date, the colonial masters have created various ways to make them control their former colonies. For instance, Britain established the Commonwealth organization, composed of former British colonies. Additionally, the Francophonie organization brings the former French colonies together.
The hierarchical administration and structure under the French colonial system were headed by a colonial master based in France, followed by a Governor-General in Dakar. Below the Governor-General was the lieutenant governor stationed in all the French colonies. The colonies were divided into sections headed by Commandant du Cercle and African chiefs at the lowest rank. Similarly, the British had a Secretary of State based in London, appointed by the British Crown. The secretary of state was followed by the Governor stationed in the colonies, followed by the Regional and District Commissioners (MĂĽller-Crepon 723). Local chiefs occupied the lowest rank in the system. Therefore, the administrative level and system for the British and French were similar, with the senior leader based in Europe and the local leaders at the lowest rank.
The colonial rule by both powers led to the erosion of African indigenous culture. Africa’s rich culture portrays its heritage and history. The rich culture and heritage were washed away by the European colonial masters. They viewed African culture as backward and always embraced Western cultures as the best and should be emulated by their colonies. They introduced European culture and started their schools where these cultures were taught. French took a step further by introducing the United French Empire, which was formed to promote the ideology of assimilation (Matasci et al. 27-29). The erosion of African culture remained a significant challenge in most European colonies because most people still believed in the superiority of the European culture rather than embracing their own culture. Some Western cultures, like Christianity and Western education, have remained part and parcel of the European colonies. Therefore, the British and the French not only scrambled for the rich natural resources in Africa, but they also eroded the rich culture in their colonies.
Furthermore, the colonial rule by both British and French colonial masters distorted the economic growth patterns in Nigeria and Gabon. The colonial powers disarticulated the provision of transportation systems, urbanization patterns, and social amenities in some locations leaving out other places. Most towns became developed, especially areas of residence for the colonial masters because the colonies were not allowed to venture into manufacturing, it became difficult for equal development in interior places (Gatwiri et al. 96). The countries relied on the importation of food; thus, they could not support themselves and had to rely on the British for survival. Overreliance on the British and French to promote development in these localities led to disappointment for Africans in Nigeria and Gabon since it interfered with local production and equality in economic expansion.
Although these two European colonial powers had a mission of conquering Africa and getting raw materials, their rule was different. The British used indirect rule, while the French employed the direct system of government. The indirect rule by the British was laid on the foundation of utilizing the traditional political institutions established by the locals to govern the people. Nigeria could administer itself after the local leaders agreed to do whatever the colonial master had ordered. Sir Frederick Lugard used an indirect system of governance and worked closely with the Emirs and Sokoto Caliphate to control Nigeria (Klein 40-41). Conversely, France federated all her colonies and administered them from Dakar, Senegal. The leadership of the French administration was always transferred from one place to another to propel the French government’s objective and mission. As a result, the British leaders could stay at a given place for a long time and familiarize themselves with the people and the customs more quickly.
The education system is another difference evident between the British and French colonists. The British education system during the colonial era was mainly undertaken by different religious missionaries who got most of their funding from British colonies. The missionary schools, which had more African students, were taught using their local languages. Missionaries believed that teaching them their local languages efficiently offered knowledge to many children in Nigeria (Dupraz 37-39). This education system used by the British in Nigeria was viewed as more effective because it encouraged many Nigerians to attend schools. On the other hand, the French required the students to attend public schools in Gabon. French was made the official language; thus, it was compulsory for all Africans who wanted to gain a Western education to learn French.
Conclusion
Conclusively, colonialism has been marked with positive and negative legacies in the British and French colonies. Several similarities and differences kept the rule and legacies of these two colonial masters. British took control of Nigeria and started indirect practice under Sir Frederick Lugard. Lugard ruled Nigeria by using indirect rule and using local chiefs and other leaders and established schools to promote Western culture. On the other hand, the French in Gabon used direct control and promoted assimilation to ensure that most of the people in Gabon could acquire French citizenship. There were many missionary schools in Nigeria where Nigerians could be taught using their vernaculars, an aspect different in neighboring Gabon. Despite the similarities and differences in their rule, the legacies have affected their relations with former colonies because these colonial powers still influence their former colonies.
Works Cited
Carotenuto, Matt. “The Africans: The History of a Continent by John Iliffe Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Journal of Modern African Studies 57.1 (2019): 167-168.
Chiazam, Bright Alozie. “Colonial Ideologies and the Emergence of Two Spaces: The Nigerian Experience.” Exploitation and Misrule in Colonial and Postcolonial Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019. 277-293.
Dupraz, Yannick. “French and British colonial legacies in education: Evidence from the partition of Cameroon.” The Journal of Economic History 79.3 (2019): 28-68.
Gatwiri, Kathomi, Julians Amboko, and Darius Okolla. “The implications of Neoliberalism on African economies, health outcomes, and wellbeing: a conceptual argument.” Social Theory & Health 18.1 (2020): 86-101.
Kesselman, Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A. Joseph. Introduction to comparative politics: political challenges and changing agendas. Cengage Learning, 2018.
Klein, Martin A. “A critique of colonial rule: a response to Bruce Gilley.” Australasian Review of African Studies, The 39.1 (2018): 39-52.
Matasci, Damiano, Miguel Bandeira Jerónimo, and Hugo Gonçalves Dores. Education and Development in Colonial and Postcolonial Africa: Policies, Paradigms, and Entanglements, 1890s–1980s. Springer Nature, 2020.
MĂĽller-Crepon, Carl. “Continuity or change? The indirect rule in British and French colonial Africa.” International Organization 74.4 (2020): 707-741.