British decolonisation in Africa Essay Example for Free

British decolonisation in Africa Essayinside the context of 1880-1980, to what extent did British actions accelerate British decolonisation in Africa?In the later days of the 19th century the scramble for the African continent by Western imperialistic powers was reaching its climax. It appeared that the disastrous continent was to be no longer dark, scarce to be the product of Western compound working step forward with several European countries dividing up the reach. No where was this to a peachyer extent apparent than with Britain whose imperium was at its height at the turn of the century. Egypt, for instance, was a colony for 40 years (1882-1922) with its pinnacle at the turn of the century but the decolonisation of the country as early as this is an anomaly in itself as still second Africa had oldly been give emancipation by the British, albeit as a self- finding dominion. In a unusual turn of events which historians still debate today, the pudding sto ne crumb guide and by the 1970s only two African states remained British colonies Rhodesia and s exposehwestern West Africa.The conglomerate had taken the best part of a century to amalgamate, except was for the most part swept away in just everyplace a decade. M any reasons nurse been proposed for the vast speedup of decolonisation including economic difficulties at the metropole (Cain and Hopkins)1 and the rise of local jingoistic movements (Hodgkin)2. More recently the actions of the British relieve oneself been cited as a contingent factor for the acceleration of decolonisation in Africa, marking a spay in the historiography of the period. Turner3 and Lapping4 are promoters of this theory, which is gaining credence in the academic world.The 1945 election of the Labour party is a divide in decolonisation acceleration. WW2 had recently ended which marked a shift in British subtlety and society, including a changed pose to imperium. Interestingly, whilst many of the forward-looking Cabinet were anti-imperialists, the new government did not fuck off a direct plan to fully decolonise. It was more a case of the Empire having to take a stomachseat to furthest more pressing matters imperialism, in raise, slipped through the cracks of government. The party was elected on the mandate of and closely rivet upon British wel removede the African colonies were working and therefore the governments attention was deviated, however it was one of the actions directed at the metropole which speed independence for many colonies.The introduction of the Wel furtheste State in 1948 led many Britons to escort the priority and indeed the importance of the Empire when compared to home-grown issues. WW2 brought change magnitude globalisation and it is possible that through this many British citizens maxim their needs ahead of the colonies an archaic and out-of-date segment of British foreign policy. If the colonies had repre displaceation in the British Parl iament and were a province of, instead than simply a colony of Great Britain, this attitude may have been different French Algeria, for instance, was certainly more respected at the metropole then any of Britains African colonies.There is a debate however, as to whether the British public had undergone a liberal transition or were simply acting with self-interest. White has theorised that the latter is true, citing that the reason as to why the colonies were ditched was to release re occurs for house servant welfare spending5. Moreover, the fact National Service was revoked in 1960 reduced Britains ability to defend its colonies against uprising nationalist movements conscription was ended through self-interest, as the majority of British youths didnt want to have to fight in the far off terrains of Sub-Saharan Africa. This advance implies that the average British citizen was becoming disinterested by the Empire or, at the very least, impartial to its future. I will cover nation alism in greater k instantaneouslyledge below, but with much(prenominal) a lack of metropole interest, the Empire could not be evaluate to last long. The British action of electing a Labour government effectively, in an indirect form, accelerated decolonisation for many of the African colonies.WW1 expanded the Empire both geographically and as a world power, with Britain gaining several new mandates from the drag Empire. The geographical expansion of the Empire post-WW1 and the reluctance of the metropole to grant these new mandates independence6, imply that attitudes had not changed and many (both in government and in society) saw the Empire as a credible and useful segment of British politics therefore, with the exception of the more economically advanced Egypt, African decolonisation by the British did not occur between the wars. Rather, many African colonies developed and became more stable societies.Take the Gold sliding board for instance between the wars its providence, communications and education became, to a certain extent, Westernised and the country flourished. Admittedly this led to the acceleration of nationalist movements in the area which, in turn, accelerated decolonisation, but the country was undeniably prospering receivable to the British-led government of the time.7 Many citizens of the African colonies (including Egypt and the Gold chute) fought onside British soldiers in WW1 and the respect and prestige for the peoples increased because of it. Indeed, the 1914-1939 era can be fooln as one of the strongest periods of the British African Empire. This implies that a post-1945 factor (e.g. the Suez Crisis, depict below) accelerated decolonisation.In comparison, World War 2 accelerated decolonisation at a far greater rate than many could have imagined just a few years prior. Effectively, the war realised rather paradoxically that imperialism (both British and early(a)wise) was both positive and negative. Ferguson has noted that t he British Empire sacrificed itself to stop the dispel of the evil empire of Nazi Germany indeed, the British Empire had never had a finer hour8 than when it was self-sacrificing. During the war it was fatal that Britain would have to, to a certain extent, neglect the colonies to focus on defeating the enemy. Through this the colonies became more independent having to, for example, source resources and engage in trade without the aid of the metropole.Moreover, the colonial peoples had a greater influence on the caterpillar track of their societies in effect, many became informal dominions. This, have with the policies of the 1945 Labour government, elevate fuelled nationalism which accelerated decolonisation in a way similar to how the two World Wars improved womens rights in Britain, the wars seemed to suggest that many colonies could govern effectively on their own. Previously, only the more economically and politically stable societies had been granted independence (e.g. Sou th Africa, 1910) and several colonies (e.g. the Gold microscope slide) seemed to show similar traits during the war. The Second World War didnt lead directly to decolonisation, but it is this British action which occurred because of the conflict that accelerated decolonisation in British Africa.The end of WW2 bought increased globalisation and a new world order, where the enemy didnt appear to be Nazism or Fascism, but rather the expansion of the Soviet Bloc and the spread of socialism the cutting War was just beginning to ignite. on with the notion of changed attitudes of the British people, there is to a fault the argument that the Empire really didnt fit into the new world. Now, the set forth between East and West had never been more apparent and British Africa looked like an oddity along with the passing of new welfare legislation at the metropole and the changing attitudes of the British people, Britain needed to abolish the Empire for two reasons directly related to the Co ld War to concentrate efforts on halting the spread of communism and to appease the anti-imperialist US, who Britain now need as an ally more than ever before. Moreover, the world order was now unclear and Britain had far greater problems to worry about than what their small African colonies were up to put bluntly, the new threat of nuclear inhalation seemed more important than the political shortcomings of, say, Somalia. While WW2 does spell out more crucial factors for the acceleration of decolonisation, the Cold War is another smaller factor which just added to the need to decolonise.The post-WW2 economy is a further crucial factor in the acceleration of decolonisation. Britain was no longer able to halt the fiscal costs of Empire this was coupled with a lack of substantial profit coming into the metropole from the African colonies. Economically, WW2 was a great strain on Britain with the country coming out of the war in great debt she required a loan of 145million from the US alone9. Britain was exhausted and worn down, both figuratively and physically. Many cities required money to rebuild, some from scratch, plus food badly needed to be imported following years of intense rationing. Moreover, the introduction of the welfare state (see above) required significant funding. As tell, attitudes to Empire were changing which, combined with the need for intense spending on the homeland, led to many seeing the African colonies simply as a drain on Britains already scarce resources. Britain made the situation worse during the war she had intelligibly concentrated on producing munitions for her troops, resulting in fewer exports to the colonies.Many turned away from the metropole and looked to alternate suppliers, including their own land which inevitably fuelled nationalism further. Moreover, two acts (The Colonial Development and Welfare Acts of 1940 and 1945) were passed during wartime which forced the British government to further invest in the colonial ec onomies10, therefore making an already problematic economic situation worse. It is possible that the government felt it was patroniseed into a corner and simply did not have the patience or money to rebuild the colonies and the metropole they had be fall down, or at least had the potential to become, a major rupture on the British economy a rupture Britain could not afford to fix, but only to cut out completely. In the early 20th century when British imperialism was at its height, Hobson11 saw the expansion of Britain in Africa as purely economic and an underhand method to help capitalists at the metropole this opinion was endorsed by Lenin in 191612 and, in an albeit modified form, by the historian Darwin in 1984 more completely than ever before, economics and empire had come together13.More recently, Cain and Hopkins14 have suggested that imperialism in Africa was established by gentleman capitalists15 who were simply aiming to make profit out of the African land. Of course, if this is the case, then with the post-war debt experienced in 1945 it would have been difficult to make money from these colonies, tip to decolonisation. The decolonisation of African colonies would effectively make Britain a richer country, therefore agreeing with the views expressed by Cain and Hopkins and others the Empire had served its purpose of aiding Britains wealthiness but now it was draining it and, as such, it was time for it to go.The Suez Crisis of 1956 was one of the most decisive British actions in the 20th century to accelerate decolonisation in Africa. Former Prime Minister Harold MacMillan once remarked that it is events, approximate boy, events16 which de bournine the success of a premiership. The term event is almost too light of a accent to use when considering the Suez Crisis not only did it annihilate Anthony promised lands administration, but it was also the launching pad for many factors which saw British decolonisation vastly accelerated. There are tw o key elements of the crisis which paved the way to said factors the deception employed by the imperialist powers of Britain and France, plus the apparent overreaction to a simple act of communisation by a head of state. Both these factors led to the reputations of the countries involved and planetary relations been dishonored, as intumesce as a decrease in trade. Britain was the driving force behind the attack therefore she was peculiarly wounded with the political and economic fallout for one, the special relationship with the United States was harmed (Secretary of State John shelter Dulles claimed the British government had explicitly lied to him17) and, more critically for this inquiry, her reputation within the African continent was damaged. Britain looked small and corrupt, a mere shadow of her former colonial self she was attempting to throw her imperialist weight around in a world which it didnt seem to fit.Nasser had successfully stood up to the Western powers and won , therefrom undermining Britain and France, plus providing inspiration to the many oppressed colonies. However, it is possible that the reaction did not provoke the level of international condemnation that is contemporarily considered, showing a difference in historiography. To the African colonies, former British dominions that had experienced colonialism and anti-imperialist powers such as the USA, then yes, it is likely that Britains reputation was damaged. However, to other imperialists it is possible that the government simply appeared to be rest firm with a tyrant.World War 2 had been won only 11 years prior, hence the memory of what tyrannical dictators can achieve was still fresh in most leaders minds. Eden may have appeared noble and selfless, destroying not just his own political career but a carefully-crafted reputation built up over more than 20 years18 for the greater good of a safer world, or at least a more economically stable Great Britain. White has proposed that there were a number of lacklustre continuities, rather than dramatic discontinuities19 in imperialist policy following Edens departure a government memorandum circulated in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, for instance, made no mention of impending decolonisation20. Suez was not so much a watershed, but a temporary setback in Britains imperial decline, indicating other factors are responsible.Economically, the Egyptian nationalisation of the canal posed a significant danger to Britain as 2/3 of the countrys oil utilised the waterway. The chief reason as to why Britain intervened in the first indicate (and, indeed, binded the Canal regulate in 1922) was that the government simply did not trust the Egyptians to efficiently underwrite the windpipe21 of the British economy. Post-crisis, Britains humiliation resulted in a trade decrease and a catastrophic22 run on the pound, resulting in her appearing not only politically and militarily weak but also financially weak. This situ ation, which was caused by the Suez Crisis, meant that Britain could no longer afford to support the African colonies, implying that the British action of invading the Suez Canal Zone led to one of the factors which brought about the Empires collapse. Combined, these factors inspired nationalist movements within the colonies and general condemnation of imperialism, which also accelerated decolonisation.The crisis is unique as not only did it, to a certain extent accelerate decolonisation, but it is also one of the very few examples of where a British action greatly damages the standing of the Empire. preceding to Suez, Britain was surprisingly cautious with decolonisation (with regard to Africa, only 4 of her 24 colonies had been decolonised at this point) arguably this was to retain an Empire, but also to ensure that the new societies were ready to govern. It was only following the Suez debacle that decolonisation accelerated, implying that previously Britain had took great care o ver the handovers of power.South Africa was a stable society when decolonised in 1910 and, looking further afield, so were Australia, Canada and India. To many other countries and colonies, Britain appeared now unable to continue to be the metropole of a successful Empire. later all, if the dictator of a former colony could cause a country such ridicule, how could they be expected to carry on maintaining a successful Empire? Comparatively with White23, Turner has called the crisis a military mishap and political disaster24, whilst Lapping has referred to it as the imperial cataclysm25 in decolonisation acceleration. The crisis was highly influential in the eventual(prenominal) collapse of the British Empire in Africa but it did not lead directly to decolonisation, rather greatly accelerated it.The rise of nationalism within the African colonies inevitably accelerated decolonisation advocates of this theory deliberate that for decolonisation to occur there needs to be an oppositio n force to the status quo government (in this case, colonial British rule), thereby giving the people a choice. Looking throughout history at the Empire as a whole gives this theory credibility look at the violent independence battles of the 13 North American colonies in 1783 or India in 1947, and compare that to the peaceful colony of the Falkland Islands which still exists today. The previous decolonisation record of the British government, plus the 1947 granting of independence to India, no doubt sent the message that it was only a matter of time before the African colonies were decolonised. India specifically was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire and as such its decolonisation will have led many, both in the colonies and abroad, to see the Empire as deteriorating.This accelerated nationalist movements within the African colonies, with India referencing the beginning of the end. After all, if India could be granted independence through a fibrous and violent nationalis t movement, then why couldnt the other far less prestigious colonies? Indian independence inspired others to rise up and attempt to take back control of their lands, accelerating the decolonisation process for British Africa. Similarly, plus to reiterate an earlier point, the Suez Crisis accelerated nationalism Nasser appeared to be the David who had managed to annihilate the imperialist Goliath. This inspired nationalism in other colonies to grow and attempt to take back control of their lands after all, if Nasser could manage it then why couldnt they? Harold MacMillans Winds of Change speech four years later further inspired this nationalism as, for the first time, the government officially acknowledged the inevitability of decolonisation.The speech sent the message to many colonial peoples that nationalism was acceptable for the first time in almost hundred hundred years, power was given to the Africans. MacMillan was acknowledging that the British government could no longer aff ord to sustain an Empire and would be willing to pass power to the local peoples if they should so wish. The speech had a great effect as over the next ten years 88% of Britains remaining African colonies were granted independence by 1968, only two remained. Nationalism was suddenly acceptable which encouraged those who may have been centre to be a colony to rise up against imperialism. This speech, combined with Britains poor economic situation and damaged credibility following Suez, vastly accelerated decolonisation.Moreover, the vast majority of British colonies were underdeveloped both economically and socially which further advanced nationalism. Take Nigeria for instance the peoples were so against colonial oppression many began to precipitate from work a surprisingly Western phenomenon implying the people were more integrated than they may have wished to believe. It is estimated that from 1945-50, over 100,000 working days were lost in Nigeria to strike action against colon ial rule26. Even the Gold Coast (the very model27 of a colony) was not free of such demonstrations against imperialism February 1948 witnessed a violent protest, resulting in the deaths of two British servicemen28. One only has to look at Kenya and the Mau Mau rebellions to see further evidence of increasing fend with British imperialism. It had, to use the words of one modern historian, turned into a fast scuttle29 of local nationalism.The Gold Coast was decolonized in 1957 but had been allowed to gradually master the art of modern government over many years, leading to a much more stable society post-independence, making it the very model of decolonisation30. In comparison, when Nigeria was fleetly decolonised in 1960 the government was a weak coalition with limited power two army coups followed in 1964 and 1966. Britains damaged reputation in the continent prevented stable governments from being created, resulting in far more tenuous states today.French Algeria (despite been a province of the metropole) saw terrible violence between the FLN and colons to use a term of warfare, the Algerian nationalists utilised violent guerrilla tactics to spread their cause, resulting in a great get of destruction and loss of life. Algeria bullied itself into independence in 1962 further showing that imperial metropoles were not as powerful as they once were. It is an exaggeration perhaps, but it can be said that the Suez Crisis was the first instance which led to these new states political and economic troubles which still exist today. Look at Egypt and South Africa today or, from a more international perspective, India and Australia, all of which were granted independence pre-1956 and compare them to the troubled states of Nigeria, Kenya (1963) and Somalia (1960).The acceleration of British decolonisation in the latter half of the 20th century is the opposite of what the government and imperialists like the legendary Cecil Rhodes would have imagined just 60-70 year s previously. They had fought sometimes bloody battles for the expansion of the British Empire into the less civilised areas of the world, yet now the government was seemingly nerve-wracking to get rid of the Empire in as rapid and inefficient way as possible. Multiple factors account for the sudden acceleration of decolonisation, but most come back to the actions of the British if Britain had, for instance, provided more support and direct governance in a Westernised style (as seen in the Gold Coast), her colonies would have developed at a greater rate leading to a greater level of content from the colonial peoples.However her neglect and exploitation of her own people led to dissent within the colonies, leading many to want out before they were politically ready. The most pivotal British action which is continually referred back to is the 1956 Suez Crisis for the first time in the Empires history, the British appeared militarily, politically and economically weak, causation many in the African colonies to quite fairly believe they could run their countries better. Nationalism was inevitable, and the international conflicts of the Cold War and the two World Wars couldnt be stopped, implying that Britain herself was responsible for the downfall of her own Empire.If the crisis hadnt occurred then the Empire would have faded away through gradual decolonisation as each territory became more economically, politically and socially developed instead, the Crisis turned decolonisation of Africa into a rapid scuttle31, with Britain almost retreating into a corner trying to distance herself as far as possible from the embarrassment of 1956. Today, it is easy to see that decolonisation was inevitable the Suez Crisis just accelerated that inevitability. One of the worlds greatest Empires was established by one of the most powerful countries in the world, so it is only fitting that it was destroyed by one of the most disgraced it is just ill-omened they were both Grea t Britain.1 Cain, P. J. Hopkins, A. J., 1993, British Imperialism Crisis and Deconstruction, 1914-19902 Hodgkin, T., 1956, Nationalism in Colonial Africa3 Turner, B., 2006, Suez 1956 The inner Story of the First crude War4 Lapping, B., 1985, End of Empire5 White, N. J., 1999, Decolonisation The British reckon Since 1945, Pg 326 Thorn, G., 2008, End of Empires European Decolonisation 1919-80, Pg 167 McLaughlin, J. L., 1994, The Colonial earned run average British Rule of the Gold Coast8 Ferguson, N., 2004, Empire How Britain Made the Modern World9 Rohrer, F., 10/05/2006, BBC News Online http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm Accessed 25/04/201010 Chamberlain, M.E., 1985, Decolonisation The Fall of the European Empires, Pg 3511 Hobson, J.A., 1902, Imperialism A Study12 Lenin, V., 1916, Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism13 Darwin, J., 1984, British decolonization since 1945 A Pattern or a Puzzle?, Pg 19714 Cain, P. J. Hopkins, A. J., 1993, British Imperialism Cris is and Deconstruction, 1914-199015 Cain, P. J. Hopkins, A. J., 1993, British Imperialism basis and Expansion, 1688-191416 Beckett, F., 2006, MacMillan, Pg 9717 Wilby, P., 2006, Eden, Pg 7918 Wilby, P., 2006, Eden, Pg 12819 White, N. J., 1999, Decolonisation The British Experience Since 1945, Pg 8520 White, N. J., 1999, Decolonisation The British Experience Since 1945, Pg 12821 Wilby, P., 2006, Eden, Pg 9622 White, N. J., 1999, Decolonisation The British Experience Since 1945, Pg 8423 White, N. J., 1999, Decolonisation The British Experience Since 194524 Turner, B., 2006, Suez 1956 The Inside Story of the First Oil War25 Lapping, B., 1985, End of Empire26 White, N. J., 1999, Decolonisation The British Experience Since 1945, Pg 4827 Thorn, G., 2008, End of Empires European Decolonisation 1919-80, Pg 5028 White, N. J., 1999, Decolonisation The British Experience Since 1945, Pg 4929 Lapping, B., 1985, End of Empire, Pg 22730 Thorn, G., 2008, End of Empires European Decolonisation 1919 -80, Pg 5031 Lapping, B., 1985, End of Empire, Pg 227