Subservience – The Enduring Legacy of Colonial Africa

The Europeans were extraordinarily successful at instilling a psyche of subservience in their colonies. They came from a socially stratified society and those who were sent to the outer reaches of the empires were typically from a class below the royals and service to the crown often resulted in their social standing and that of their families rising to a level above the station of which they were born.

Part of being able to rise above that station meant having a layer below and ensuring that layer did not threaten to become equal to ones own. Upon conquering Africa the colonial administrators set about creating constant reminders to the Africans that they were of a class below their masters.

On the plantations they built large residences and used funds available to construct enormous and ornate official buildings in which they held court. In both their residences and administrative offices, Africans were only allowed entry in the capacity of servants.

After the existing social macro structure had been broken down only the Europeans controlled the means to social, career and political (to the extent such was allowed) advancement. Africans lived at the pleasure of the colonial administration.

Although pushed down and controlled by an oppressive power, a natural pride still lingered under the surface preserving the social micro structure. African history, culture, folklore, traditions and social expectations were passed verbally from one generation to the next. Europeans did not find ancient writings they could destroy, they did not speak nor care to learn the languages and culture and in doing so, allowed a great deal of Africa to survive beneath the veneer of colonial dominance.

Even though this cultural memory survived, it became infused with a fear and respect of the authority of European power. While the Europeans did not take the trouble to learn local languages but they ensured that those with whom they came in contact, normally in the capacity of servants or low level functionaries, spoke the language of the crown.

With the norm now being that the way one moved up, provided a good life for your family and a future for your children was by working for the Europeans, Africans lost confidence and respect for one another within the context of controlling authority.

Any African installed in a position of authority such as a clerk at a district administrative office was expected to treat his fellow Africans with the same contempt and lack of respect his European supervisors did. This application of appointed power generated resentment on the part of the Africans who came in contact with their brothers in the administration because they recognized that the position held by the administrative lackey was not only one of negligible or nonexistent authority but also that the authority exercised with such a lack of respect was grudgingly granted by the Europeans who sat in the large offices one floor above or over by the windows.

No matter how fancy the titles such as chief, paramount chief, senior clerk or whatever, those Africans who held the positions were held in contempt. Africans learned through several generations that it was the way of the world; if you wanted something done the only way to achieve the desired result was to beg the assistance of a European. Going to an African was a waste of time.

Although the vast majority of Africa’s leaders around the time of the independence movement were university educated and had years of legislative and professional experience, the average African’s interaction with fellow Africans in positions of authority was with those in subservient roles. Although these people on the radio spoke about this wonderful thing of independence and nationhood, it was understood that nationhood was granted at the pleasure of the Europeans. Even the famous leaders who came out to give speeches, whose photographs appeared on newspapers, and who they crowded around radios to hear were mere lackeys because without the Europeans, they had no legitimacy – it was just nice that the Europeans allowed them to go around saying all those things.

So, when independence rolls around and these leaders take over at the political level, the reality of the situation is the rank and file of the civil service is still filled with Europeans because even though they worked to prepare the politicians for independence, they did not take the trouble to train Africans to rise up in the civil service. An obvious result of this is that nothing changed soon for the majority of Africans. Europeans still ran the provincial administration, the security forces and the educational system so they were still the boss no matter what those young idealists were saying in the capital.

Although the countries were now independent, they still had to go to the Europeans if they wanted to get anything done. Subservience remained. It made sense from the European point of view to do things this way because they did not want Africans to gain control for fear the Africans would not toe the line plus, if they simply turned the new countries over to a population of untrained and inexperienced people then they would probably fall apart fairly quickly. Besides, what would they do with the thousands of colonial administrators if they were forced to return home? There would be a layer of thousands of educated and experienced administrators milling around at home. Just what they needed - educated rabble rousers with the knowledge and ability to run large organizations efficiently. No thanks, leave them in the colonies until they reach retirement age and put them to pasture with generous pensions. Had they let these people come home en masse the unions, which were already very strong as it was would have received an influx of fresh talent – an eventuality neither business, the political establishment nor the royals wanted to face.

Pre-independence national budgets in Africa were developed for the purpose of supporting the colonial administration. The education and health of the locals was neither a high budget priority nor a concern of any kind. The Europeans did not care that Africans had no electricity, no reasonable transportation infrastructure in the areas where they lived, no water beyond the local streams and wells, no access to education that would lead to jobs above the clerical level, no healthcare delivery system and no telecommunications infrastructure. These things just did not matter. That being the case, tax structures were developed so as to exclude funding for these items – they were not priorities and so were kept out of the standard budget.

Post independence leaders inherited this economic structure alongside the aspirations of their people. It costs a tremendous amount of money to deliver the things that were outside of the standard budget consideration of the colonial administration. That was money that the economies just did not produce.

This is how foreign aid started. Africa’s new governments would have to spend money they did not have in order to begin to meet the needs of the people and the only place they could go for that money was to their former colonial masters. Again, Africans in the position of authority had to run to the Europeans in order to get what they needed to do their jobs – the perpetuation of subservience.

Although they gave up political control and spoke to the new African leaders as equals, the general European view of Africans was that of the master to the servant. In that position, Europeans still controlled the destiny of their former colonies. They still owned the means of production – the majority of tax revenue came from the large farms and mines owned by Europeans and thus they held onto the keys of power.