HOW TRUE IS THE VIEW THAT THE FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND WAS CREATED FOR ECONOMIC RATHER THAN POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS? The Federation was created to perpetuate European political, economic and social supremacy by holding back African political advancement. A white- controlled federation would be a bulwark against progress towards an African- dominated independence. As matters stood in the three territories, the European settlers dominated the political landscape with virtually little competition being offered by the Africans. The Africans’ participation was restricted by their failure to meet the high franchise requirements. Thus far they had been denied participation and representation on the grounds that they were illiterate, earned little, owned very little property, paid little taxes and little to overall economic development. However that scenario was beginning to change in the 1950s. Rising literacy and income levels among Africans began to suggest that they could catch up and even surpass the whites in the foreseeable future. When that happened it would no longer be justified to persist in excluding them from fully participating and even dominating the political scene. Britain would consequently be left with little choice but to hand over the political initiative to Africans. Given Britain’s history towards the devolution of greater power to its subjects, the European settlers had good reason to fear that if they did not push for a Federation while they were still in control, they would lose out to the Africans in the long term. Put another way the point is that the settlers pushed for a Federation while they still had the political initiative as a way of pre-empting or forestalling the growth of African political power. The growing political consciousness and pressure from the Africans that forced the Europeans into a more protective Federal structure was evident in all three territories. Firstly the two decades leading up to the Federation were marked by the greater proletarianisation of the Africans that had political repercussions. African incomes rose rapidly so that although they were still way below those of the Europeans, many Africans were able to meet the franchise requirements. Many more were on the verge of qualifying in the foreseeable future. That same proletarianisation led to new forms of African organisation beginning with trade unions which the European settlers found to have disturbing political connotations. African trade unions quickly won British recognition in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland while in Southern Rhodesia the General Strike of 1948 emphasized the emergence of the Africans as a political and socio-economic force that could not be ignored. Given this scenario, the heavily outnumbered European settlers in the three territories instinctively pushed for closer union or at least a Federation for greater security. The Federation was created out of the simple need for political self-preservation. The Federation was also desirable for the settler politicians as a prelude to seeking independence from Britain on the basis of European rather African political supremacy. Informed Europeans were well aware of the precarious nature of their political position as a consequence of the British colonial theories developed by colonial officials like Lord Lugard. These theories emphasized that political power in the colonies was held and exercised by a European administration only in trust for the natives until such a time when it was felt that they had sufficiently matured to exercise it for themselves. although this was all partenalistic and the Europeans gave themselves the exclusive right to decide the ‘maturity’ of Africans what was clear was the fact that the colonial powers realized that they could not rule their colonies for eternity nor could white settlers be allowed to permanently dominate native peoples. The British policy of the “paramountcy of native interests in colonies had been emphasized in a memorandum issued by Lord Passefield in the late 1930s. It was therefore evident to the white settlers in the three territories that someday Britain would have to grant independence to the territories but their hope was that the independence would be granted on the basis of white rather black majority rule. They therefore asked for a Federation while they still had the political control so the could fashion a white-ruled state in central Africa whose political stability and economic success would ultimately convince Britain to accede to demands for independence on the basis of white supremacy. From a Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland settler perspective, a Federation with Southern Rhodesia was also desirable as a way of securing greater autonomy from Britain. The two colonies were not happy with their status as Crown Colonies as this brought them under the direct supervision of Britain through its Colonial Office. They envied Southern Rhodesia’s Responsible Government status which virtually guaranteed settler independence from Britain. A prominent Northern Rhodesian settler Sir Leopold Moore voiced the whites’ dissatisfaction with their subordination to the Colonial Office in 1937 and added that their “only hope lay in amalgamation” with Southern Rhodesia. There was also the need to create a strong state better placed to resist being drawn into the clutches of the powerful apartheid state of South Africa. At a regional level a serious blow to the British imperial power and prestige was dealt by the victory of the Afrikaaner National Party over the British-backed parties in South Africa’s whites-only elections held in 1948. The nakedly racist National Party led by Dr. Malan represented the extremely bigoted face of Afrikaaner nationalism and its anti-British stance had earlier been demonstrated in two Anglo-Boer wars and more recently in the support for Germany during World War Two. Their victory presented a real threat to British imperial interests: already South Africa was stubbornly holding on to South-West Africa and also seeking to extend its domination to Britain’s High Commission Territories (Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland). Britain and the white Rhodesians feared that South Africa would also demand Southern Rhodesia just like it had done in 1922 and were only prevented by a whites-only referendum in Southern Rhodesia which opted for Responsible Government. In the final analysis, Britain seeking to preserve its empire and Southern Rhodesian whites seeking to maintain their independence from South Africa were finally driven into each other’s arms. Both agreed to the Federation as a political necessity in order to create strong Central African Bloc of British territories to stand out as a counter-weight to an Afrikaaner-led South Africa. The British government also agreed to a Federation as a way of placating liberal opinion at home and on the international arena. The whites-only general elections held in South Africa in 1948 brought to power an Afrikaner National Party which was extremely hostile to Britain. Having been elected on an Apartheid platform in the 1948 elections in South Africa, the Afrikaner National Party wasted no time in giving practical form to their racist philosophy through the Group Areas Act, Population Registration Act and other segregationist laws. Such a drawback to Nazi-style bigotry was offensive to liberal opinions that had fought the World War “to make the world safe for democracy.” It stood out in stark contrast to the colonial British liberalism which promised eventual political, economic and social equality of the races. It was also offensive to the Western opinion that had taken the lead in drafting the United Nations Universal declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The advent of a racist government right next door to its colonies thus gave Britain the impetus to pose as the champion of liberalism. According to A.J. Wills, it enabled Britain to create a Federation that would stand out in “sharper light as a bulwark of British Liberalism.” It also made economic sense to establish a Federation that would result in one huge Central African state which would be better placed than 2 or 3 smaller states to attract the finance capital necessary for large- scale infrastructural development. The three territories all had good prospects for economic development. That development was only possible if the necessary infrastructure had been constructed. Northern Rhodesia for example was poised for greater copper production on the Copper Belt and Southern Rhodesia’s diversified industrial, mining, agricultural and manufacturing industries could grow only if the two territories could generate more power to fuel these industries. What was clearly required was a hydro-electricity scheme to supply far more energy than presently possible through the thermal power stations. Given the prohibitive costs which were way beyond the capacity of the individual territories this could only be possible if they co-operated in order to attract the capital needed to finance the projects. Roads, railways, airports and high-rise buildings also needed to be constructed and this also acted as an economic incentive for creating a federation. From an economic perspective, a Federation was desirable in order to cater for an expanding and potentially huge domestic consumer market that would result from political integration. The incomes of both Africans and Europeans had been steadily increasing in the period leading up to the Federation. Although still half of the total European incomes, African money income had risen more rapidly to more than four times the value of total subsistence agricultural production. Given this potential for a huge domestic consumer demand in the three British territories, there was a need for an integrated economic system that could only be possible in an integrated political system like a Federation. A Federation would also enable all three territories to reap the benefits of economies of scale. Southern Rhodesia stood to benefit from the easy access to Northern Rhodesia’s copper which was an important raw material in the manufacturing industry. Its labour shortages would also be eased by the close association with Nyasaland where there was a large pool of unemployed people. Conversely Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would benefit from the consumer goods and employment opportunities offered by Southern Rhodesia’s varied agricultural, mineral and manufacturing economy. There were also savings to be realized through the construction and use of common facilities like the University College and Hydro- electric project which both constructed in Southern Rhodesia.
Posted on: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:21:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015