ASSIMILATION -DIRECT RULE

Assimilation was a French philosophy that aimed at turning the people’s of the French colonies into French citizens.  It has been referred to by some writers like Ali Mazrui as direct rule; but the term “assimilar” means “to cause to resemble”.  In other words it was the attempt by the French to make Africans into Frenchmen only that they would retain their black skins.  This was by substituting their indigenous culture, languages, law, civilisation, religion, political structures with French values and the enjoyment of the right of French citizenship.

The policy traces its genesis/origin from the French revolutionary doctrines of liberty, fraternity and equality which the French believed were applicable to every man including those in the colonies.  It is therefore from this basis that assimilation was employed.

The French were convinced that their culture and civilisation had attained a high level of excellence and therefore it was their noble duty to pass it on to their colonial subjects and in this way, assimilation was seen as the best.

Closely related, the French also were used as a highly centralised system of governance which they hoped would improve the African colonies.  It is therefore in this light that the French employed assimilation.

The French looked at assimilation as the most viable and effective system that would be employed to subdue colonial subjects.

The French regarded colonies not merely as areas of imperial exploitations, but overseas provinces or extensions of the French empire.  Hence whatever was applicable in France had to be adopted in their colonies or communes.

In all French colonies, France used mainly assimilation and association theories of administration. For example, assimilation policy was successfully used in four provinces of Senegal i.e. Dakar, Goree, St Louis and Rufisque. Association theory was used in other parts of Senegal and in the rest of French Africa such as Rwanda. Assimilation also partly worked in Algeria for sometime.

In Africa, most of French colonies were located in one region of Africa in form of a federal block known as French West African Federation. This greatly encouraged their centralisation kind of administration based at Dakar in Senegal. This was first formed in 1885 and consisted of Senegal, Sudan, Guinea and Ivory Coast.

By 1904, these four were joined by Dahomey, Mauritania and Niger. After 1919 when Togo land and Cameroon were mandated ie. Taken away from Germany, the League of Nations placed them under France and Britain for supervision as according to 1919 Versailles peace settlement. France ruled them under different administration distinct from that of the West African Federation.

It should be noted that right from the beginning, France acquired most of her colonies in Africa by use of arms. Their system of administration therefore varied from place to place depending on whether or not the Africans had resisted.In some areas such as Morocco.

Marshal Lyatey used indirect rule by exercising his power through the traditional leaders. Indirect rule was also used in Tunisia, Chad, and Mauritaria.

FEATURES OF FRENCH ADMINISTRATION IN AFRICA.

The French used centralised system {Federalism} in their administration with its base at Dakar in West Africa, This was because their territory from Senegal to the Congo was a consolidated block of land.

At the top, there was secretary for colonies resident in Paris followed by a Governor General whose-headquarters were at Dakar, the Capital of French Federal system in West Africa.

The French Federation was divided into different colonies each under a lieutenant Governor. Again each colony was divided into provinces called "Cercles" each under a French provincial ruler called "Commandant de Cercle".

Below him were the "Chefs de Subdivision" at district levels. It is important to note all above posts were exclusively reserved for French nationals. The highest post an African could hold was that of Canton (Location) leader. Below the location were the village chiefs of sub-locations.

It's generally believed that French rule was more repressive than that of the British. Forced labour was more felt in French colonies than in British colonies and to many Africans this was a new form of slavery. Because of this, French were faced with far more rebellions than the British.

The French regarded their colonies as overseas provinces. This was basically why they wanted to change them to African French men. Their administration did not aim at creating independent African states but strong provinces of the Metropolitan France.

The French African kings were seen as obstacles to colonial despotism. The kings could only be maintained if they accepted to work as agents of colonial administration. By using local leaders in forced labour and collection of taxes, the African kings became unpopular before their subjects and yet failure to serve the French government led to arrests, flogging and imprisonment of the African leaders.

Like the British, the French ruled as much as possible through chiefs but they eliminated any African leader who proved disloyal to their policies. Kings were deposed or retired in the interest of French-

The French administrators had a lot of judicial powers in their colonies. All criminal cases were tried by them and customary laws was ignored, except in civil cases. French administrators used 1887 "Indignant" law which allowed them to arrest and punish African subjects without holding any trial.

The French used centralised system of administration with its headquarters at Dakar in West Africa. This was important because it ensured that a common aim of France was pursued in all French controlled territories.

The French believed that their culture and civilisation were the best in the world. Her people therefore had a mission of admitting all the people especially those who had no civilisation of their own into their rich heritage.

ASSIMILATION POLICY IN AFRICA

Assimilation as a colonial administration concept refers to the arbsorption of African to European culture and European acceptance of the African as a partner in government, business and missionary enterprise. In Africa, it was mainly used by the French and the Portuguese.

The word assimilation comes from a French word "assimiler" which means to cause to resemble. This policy aimed at turning the peoples of French colonies into French citizens by substituting their indigenous culture with the French culture, language, law, civilization and religion. In this way, colonial peoples would be enabled to enjoy the rights of French citizenship.

In short, it aimed at turning the Africans into French men in all the ways of life except the skin colour.

WHY DID THE FRENCH ADOPT THIS POLICY:

The French regarded assimilation as the best way of undermining some of the backward tribal tendencies in French West Africa, for example it would assist in erasing out the Barbaric West African cultures.

For a long time, the French had lived in the coastal areas of Senegal, which were the towns of Goree, St. Louis, Rufisque and Dakar. In these areas, the inhabitants had been detribalised as a result of the long Contact with the French.

They had learnt the French ways and adopted the French cultures and civilisation. This made the French to believe that this policy was workable in West Africa. In 1883, the French government granted citizenship rights to those bom in these four communes.

This policy also had economic advantages to France, for example properly assimilated people would produce raw materials for French industries and offer market for its finished products. Moreover the overseas territories would also be useful for capitalistic foreign investment as well as a source of employment to the French. For example the top colonial administrative posts were held by the French.

The French revolutionary ideals of Liberty, equality and Fraternity were regarded as applicable to all men everywhere. This is why the French parliament passed a law granting to all those practical and Civil rights of the French citizens.

They also believed that their civilisation was the best in the world and that it was good for their colonial subjects. This view of social Darwinism brought many Europeans on the African continent.

The French like the Portuguese and the Belgians, for a long time regarded their colonies as their overseas colonies and not merely colonies for imperial exploitation. The French regarded their overseas provinces or extensions of France. Therefore wanted these provinces to appear in all forms like those of metropolitan France.

The French wanted to create a class of African Frenchmen who would help in developing their colonies socially and economically. Such a class would be employed in Education, business and administration for the benefit of Metropolitan France.

The French policy of assimilation also had political advantages for France. A successful assimilation policy would enable France get permanent overseas colonies for political advantages such as political glory and prestige.

THE PRACTICE OF ASSIMILATION:

Assimilation policy attained a success story in Senegal. By 1880, the 4 provinces of Senegal, Dakar, St. Louis, Goree and Rufisque had their own elected councils each under a major as president. They were all under an elected general council for the provinces. By 1848 Senegal had attained a right to elect and send a deputy to the French national Assembly.

In 1883 the French government granted rights of French Citizenship to the rights of French Citizenship to the inhabitants of the four communes. With these full rights of citizenship, many Africans of the communes received French education and were employed in French civil service. Therefore, for those in four communes, French citizenship was almost automatic.

Outside the communes the inhabitants were French subjects (not French citizens) these would only qualify to become French citizens if they met a number of conditions. For example, they would qualify if they gave up their rights under the Native law, had reached the age of eighteen, monogamous, were educated in French language, been in the French employment for 10 years, served in French army for six years and if one possessed a good character. These restrictions defeated the whole process and limited the chances for one to become a French citizen.

It was not surprising therefore that by 1937 only 80,500 people in a total of 15 million in the French West Africa had received French citizenship- Even then, 78,000 of these were from the four Senegalese communes of Dakar, Goree, St Louis and Rufisque leaving only 2,500 for the rest of French West Africa,

The French policy of assimilation could only work in a limited area especially in coastal provinces of Senegal but when they tried to extend their influence in the interior, it became impossible. So by 1905, the policy had been abandoned in favour of association.

REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF ASSIMILATION POLICY:

The assimilation system in the interior was also discriminatory and defeated its aims. It considered some Africans as French citizens while others as French subjects, a fact that explained their varying privileges and opportunities from the French government. This discredited the policy both in France and in West Africa.

The French feared economic and political competition with assimilated Africans. If many Africans acquired the citizen status they would demand for self-determination. There was also a possibility of dominating French government policy through their representation in the National Assembly.

The policy was very expensive and considered wasteful of taxpayers money in France. The French policy of indirect rule where it was applied proved cheap and more favourable for colonial exploitation.

The policy also had an opposition from within West Africa. The Muslim communities were hostile to the ideas of Catholicism and monogamy. The French found out that deeply rooted African cultures and political institutions in some states could not be easily overthrown in favour of assimilation. Thus the question of unique land tenure system, marriage and African religion different from those of the French made the exercise impossible.

The policy was attacked from ail coners of France. The scholars in France called it unwise and unrealistic since it was impossible to convert Africans into Frenchmen. The Africans were people of distinct race with their cultures and traditions which needed to be respected. The humanitarians also pleaded for Africans by urging the government to give them an opportunity to develop along their own lines.

The system of Education established in the French colonies did not encourage assimilation because it was in the hands of missionaries whose main aim was evangelisation. These provided education that was Christian oriented which made the Senegalese Moslems hate it for fear of being converted into Christianity.

The policy was attacked for lacking foresight. It was argued that it contained seeds of liquidation, as the assimilated would deprive France of the colonial subjects for exploitation. The Merchants argued that assimilation defeated the purpose of French colonial acquisition since it would eventually deprive France of sources of labour and lack of materials as all French citizens were all exempted of such colonial demands.

Due to limited communication owing to the underdeveloped infrastructure, in terms of roads, railways, telegraph lines and the like, considerable decision making was left to the Lieutenant Governor of each of the colonies. There was also a problem of lack of control on lower African chiefs such as location and sub-location. These were greatly underpaid which made them develop extra judicial despotic conduct.

Owing to the above problems encountered in assimilation policy by French colonialists, they chose to adopt another system of administration known as association theory. This had relaxed characteristics towards the French demands on Africans. It was almost similar to British administration system of indirect rule.

APPLICATION OF ASSIMILATION IN SENEGAL

Senegal is regarded as the only French colony in West Africa where assimilation was applicable in 19th Century especially in the coastal urban centres of St. Louis, Dakar, Goree and Rufsque.  It is in those four communes that the citizens were given the rights of citizenship which made them become Frenchmen but in African skins.

In addition, by 1848, Senegal was given the right to elect and send a deputy to the French National Assembly to represent the interests of the French colonies.

The four communes of Senegal became the basis of the local government by 1872.

Many Africans in the communes received French education that was largely based on the French educational curriculum and some would be given scholarships to pursue their university education in France and even some worked there.

In the four communes, the French culture was generally adopted such as the system of employment, the system of government; religion was made purely catholic and the French language gained a superior position in the far communes for it became the national language.  In which case therefore, a critical analysis of assimilation in practice in Senegal portrays considerable success in the four mentioned communes.

Despite the success of this policy in the four communes of Senegal, this does not require exaggeration for it was partial for the mere fact that that it was confined in a small area of West Africa.

The failure of this policy traces its origin from the fact that assimilation as a philosophy was unrealistic to the extent that it even met opposition from the French scholars themselves who argued that it was not worth to venture into turning the Africans into Frenchmen when the two are apparently divorced in terms of culture, race, land tenure system, marriage institutions and generally traditions that had to be respected and preserved.

Furthermore, the policy failed for it encountered African resistance particularly in the interior of West Africa where they met strongly organised political institutions and began to realize the differences in terms of traditional religion, marriage institutions, land tenure systems which were very impractical to alter.

In addition, very few people accepted this policy particularly because of its nature for it seemed oppressive to the Africans because it denied them their traditional culture. 

Furthermore, the French merchants did not support the venture of assimilation of the Africans and making them French men, for in their opinion, the cardinal purpose of colonialism was exploitation of the Africans rather than making them French men with plenty of rights.

Leaving education in the hands of Catholics could not attract the masses in West Africa because of the dominance of Islam for many people rebelled against the French education.

Meanwhile at home, colonial leaders found this policy more costly especially when they compared it to the British system of indirect rule.  It was as a result of the above factors that the French opted to abandon assimilation as a policy of administration and opted for “association” in 1905 which entailed the coexistence between the Africans and the French men.  It was in theory indirect rule (association), but in practice, it was a little more a domination of the Africans by the French.

The adoption of association was a testimony of the failure of assimilation as a policy of administration.  However, the traces of assimilation still remained in some parts of West Africa.  For the former French colonies although were independent, still received considerable economic aid from France and still have defensive agreements allowing them to station French troops in their states, to-date.

Cultural influence such as the French language which is still the Lingua-Franc in some of these areas, the education system is still run on the French curriculum and so is the system of government and general interactions as are prevalent as one writer rightly concludes;

“The ghost of assimilation lingered on and could still be seen flitting in and outside of the French colonial affairs”.

INDIRECT RULE AND ASSIMILATION COMPARED.

In an attempt to compare the employment of the differing systems of administration, one has to analyse it partly in light of the attitude, the reasons, the system in practice and the end results.

In light of the British, indirect rule was the policy of administration which entailed the preservation of the existing political structures in the African colonies but under the direction and normal guidance of the colonial government.

Meanwhile among the French, assimilation was the system that entailed turning the Africans into French men by substituting their indigenous cultures such as language, law, civilisation, religion with French culture and enjoyment of the rights of French citizenship.

The employment of the two policies differed in light of the attitude for the British regarded colonies as separate entities from their mother countries while the French regarded the colonies as overseas provinces or extensions of the French empire.   This therefore explains the diversion of the policies employed.

It is pre-supposed that the British regarded this policy as the most viable partly because they were forced with an acute shortage of manpower, limited resources and that the policy would be more efficient.  Meanwhile to the French, it is pre-supposed that they had enough manpower, enough resources in fulfilling the policy of assimilation.  This explains the employment of the system.

In practice, while the French policy provided for the representation of the colonies in the French National Assembly, the British never envisaged such an idea.

The French has a highly centralised system and an authoritarian Federal system by which colonies were being controlled by the governor general whose headquarters were at Dakar where he received orders from Paris.  Meanwhile the British had established separate administrative  systems in each colony being run by a local governor who was responsible to foresee state affairs.

While the British acknowledged and respected the positions of traditional rulers in African societies, the French destroyed them by creating and imposing on them artificial chiefs.

Similarly while the British respected the idea of selecting chiefs, the French appointed chiefs.  In disregard of their rule as leaders in otherwords they were less than civil servants.

The two policies also portray that the British system was greatly determined by the existing circumstances for example in centralised institutions, indirect rule was a successful policy unlike in decentralised institutions.  This was unlike in the French system where (that assimilation was believed to succeed in any circumstances.  It is partly as a result of this attitude that assimilation failed in favour of politique d’Association.  i.e where the French system of administration was uniform and standard that of the British varied according the existing political and local circumstance.

The French Lieutenant Generals had a shorter duration of service of about 2-3 years unlike the British where an administrator would serve for the rest of his career in the same colony as was the case in Northern Nigeria.

The two policies also greatly differed in light of the role of the indigenous chiefs whereby the British depended on advisory relationship of the local chiefs or ‘native authority’ unlike the French who relied on white officials.

Despite the differences, the two policies had some elements of similarity for example both the French and British powers both believed in the superiority of their races and culture to those of the colonial people.  In otherwords, to the colonialism was a European civilising mission where both powers claimed it was their noble duty to introduce their cultures in Africa.

In both systems there was centralised administration especially through the secretary of state who worked in the interests of the British while the French Minister of colonies worked in the interests of the French government.

Like the British colonies had legislative councils and chief councils, the French had advisory Resident District Officers among others.

Both systems undermined the position of traditional rulers in African societies and among their people.  This although could have been at a lesser degree in indirect rule than in assimilation, the existing political structure was left as a puppet of the colonial system.  In which case therefore the differences between these two policies are largely based on the background attitude and in practice as Sir John Harry rightly concluded about the French system in his famous work “The Dawn in Darkest Africa”.

“None but French men should go to the colonies of liberty, equality and fraternity for there is little liberty, less equality in the French colonies for the whites and blacks”.

In otherwords the attitude that a colony had towards the other greatly determined the policy of administration.