The Germans and British used different administrative policies in East Africa.  The Germans applied direct rule in Tanganyika while the British mostly used indirect rule although in some parts, they used direct rule.

British indirect rule

The coming of colonialists in East Africa brought different methods of administration but the most outstanding ones were direct and direct rule. By definition indirect rule was a method of colonial rule in which the colonialists used the local chiefs to rule on their behalf. The chiefs were only supervised by the British.

In other words it was a method of colonial administration in which the local and traditional institutions were left in office to run the day to day administrative duties but only supervised by those whites.

The British indirect rule was a system of colonial administrators, i.e. native chiefs and head men were used by the British to govern their subjects. This system of administration was mainly used in centralised states for example in Uganda; it was used in Buganda and in western parts of Kenya and some parts of Tanganyika.

Current Kabaka Mutebi of Buganda. His kingdom implemented indirect rule

Why the British used indirect rule.

Firstly, this system was found to be strategically easy because it depended on the use of traditional rulers who were easily accepted by the masses. Indirect rule sought to use local chiefs because they were the accepted leaders of people. It was therefore a convenient means of using Africans as instruments for implementing British policies. By this, the British would avoid African rebellions.

Secondly, the system was economically cheap.  since the traditional chiefs would be paid in form of petty gifts like old clothes or some simple salary and presents, it was found to be economically cheap and less costly to the British. The British lacked enough funds to cater for the costs of Administration. The use of local leaders since their salaries were lower than those required by the British Europeans solved the problem.

Thirdly the British public had a belief that African societies were static and their political institutions fixed. It was assumed that African population was barbaric, conservative and hated change. The possible means of enhancing change in such societies without causing disaster and disintegration would be using influence from the top through kings and chiefs. In places where such strong leaders were absent warrant chiefs had to be appointed.

Fourthly, the system was also preferred because there was shortage of white personnel.  So the British wanted Europe to rule indirectly hence they resorted on the traditional chiefs who were readily available.

Fifthly, the British feared immediate African response.  So they used African chiefs as shock absorbers which their manpower capacity would not easily shoulder. African shock absorbers: the colonial economic policies being unpopular and exploitative, they received a lot of resentment from the masses and to minimize this, the colonialists sought to use the indigenous rulers. The colonialists would remain behind the curtains of such unpopular orders.

Another factor is that the traditional rulers understood their people better and spoke the same language or similarly related languages.  Therefore the British thought that African chiefs could effectively promote their policies because of this double advantage.

To the British who were the great supporters of this system argued that the British used this system as a means of imparting skills of leadership to African chiefs? Lugard had similar experiences in Nigeria and India.  This system had effectively worked in Canada.

The British feared resistance from overthrown chiefs. There were chiefs who were defeated and others demoted from their prominent positions so the British thought that these people would rise into rebellion in order to protect their sovereignty.

The system created disunity among the African and this served the interests of the British better that is divide and rule.

The British knew that at one time Africans will have to rule themselves and therefore, it was meant to prepare them for self rule.

A belief in social Darwinism theory: British public had a confirmed feeling that their social and cultural institutions were highly developed for Africans and if imposed would only serve to cause misunderstandings and disintegration of African societies. In this way indirect rule was seen as a way of effecting change and bringing Africans into a closer contact and harmony without trouble.

This system was suitable for British administration plans of their colonies. The British claimed that, unlike the French, colonies were separate entities that were supposed to have their own administrative systems. The British were not to have at least in theory uniform laws drawn from London for every British protectorate,

The existence of well developed African institutions such as in Buganda and Northern Nigeria provided a framework for an efficient administration. Besides, the British feared the danger of dismantling the local administrative set up. The use of these institutions was the best way of avoiding trouble with strong African leaders.

The physical difficulties in colonial Africa also favoured the use of traditional chiefs. The thick forests the tropical diseases; wild animals, hostile tribes and lack of transport all made it difficult to employ the British at local levels. The British could only reach the grassroots through their accepted local leaders. The local chiefs would withstand harsh conditions.

Indirect rule was the best method of ruling the illiterate masses of Africa. Since they could not be mobilised through the radio and the press, the use of African leaders seemed a workable solution. It was also a way of solving the language barrier between the British and their colonial subjects.

Lord Lugard also adopted indirect rule as a way of preparing Africans for eventual self- government. This could be achieved by allowing African leaders to exercise their responsibility.

Failure of Assimilation: this proved to be impossible because Africans remained Africans (insisted on their cultures). Africans greatly failed to turn into black Europeans. Thus for the purpose of security and minimizing African resistance and create efficiency with effectiveness in exploitation of African resources indirect rule had to be adopted,

How indirect rule was practised.

Indirect rule was most successful in centralised states like Buganda.  Here, it was applied at the level of local governments but not at the level of central governments because such offices were reserved for the whites.

The African chief was the main actor at local levels like districts and counties. Policies were got from the central government and were passed to lesser chiefs who in turn passed over the policies on the local man.

The lesser chiefs operated at the lowest levels for example the sub-county chiefs, village headmen, parish chiefs and clan elders.  Therefore they provided basis of political authority.

Grades of chiefs used in various parts of Uganda included, County chiefs, Sub-county Chiefs, Parish chiefs.

The duties of chiefs were collection of taxes, implementation of government policy, promotion of law and order in their areas among other functions.

The British used Buganda agents like Semei Kakungulu in the East, Nuwa Mbaguta in the West, James Miti in Bunyoro and Apollo Kaggwa in Buganda

The chiefs also presided over the native law courts and applied African laws to rule the masses.  But in case there was resistance, from the local people, then the British would step in.

The African chiefs acted as agents to collect taxes for the local treasury for example in Buganda, the local treasury was based at Entebbe.

The British colonial government appointed and posted a resident Governor to Uganda and Kenya.  It was this governor who appointed district officials to protect British interests in the interior.

In parts like Kigezi, Acholi, Bunyoro and Karamoja, the British used direct rule rather than indirect rule hence Baganda agents were mainly used to administer these areas.  It is this that led to the Nyangire revolt of 1907.

In other areas like Busoga, Toro and Ankole where agreements were signed, the foundation, of traditional institutions of Kingship were also weakened.

In other segmentary decentralised areas like Teso, Lango, Bugisu, Bunyoro, Bukedi, Bugwere, and Busoga, The British created new rulers who were often the foreigners.  They used Kakungulu and Ganda agents to promote British colonial interests yet they were foreigners in eastern Uganda.  Thus the British did not allow local institutions to develop.

It can therefore be summed up that the British indirect rule was one way of ruling directly just like the Germans did in Tanganyika.  The only difference was that the British were moderate in their administration unlike the Germans.

Problems faced by the British during implementation of indirect Rule.

In decentralised societies, they found a problem of single accepted authority at the top.  It was thus difficult to get individuals to use the councils of elders which were too weak to implement British policies.

The British created chief Achia to solve the problem of lack of single accepted authority in some societies like Karamoja.  He was to restrict movement of Karamojong and their cattle so as to meet the British demands.  Chief Achia was however killed hence the problem of elders continued.

The frequent wars of resistance especially in Bunyoro for example (Nyangire rebellion of 1907) Acholi (the Lamogi rebellion) of 1911-1912 and resistance in Karamoja and later the Yakan revolt in West Nile.  To a large extent, these hindered the implementation of indirect rule.

There was lack of trained manpower especially then that only forty trained personnel had been for the Ugandan colonial administration.

The system faced the problem of administration costs more especially the British colonial government never wanted to use the British tax payers money to finance the administration of Uganda.

At times, the British failed to understand the social organisation of the people.  Instead they introduced social laws which people rejected because they were harsh.  As a result, the people did not understand the British.

The policy implementers also faced the problem of foreign geography and diseases especially in the interior.  This worked against indirect rule.

Where African chiefs were strong, they did not want to co-operate with the British at all. This was true with Chief Awich of Payera in northern Uganda.

Also some chiefs never wanted to hand over the taxes collected to the British treasury and it caused financial problems.

Most African chiefs lacked formal education and skills and could not do the job as expected. They failed to understand English and could not read.

There was a problem of language barrier where African chiefs could not communicate effectively with their colonial supervisors. The Ganda chiefs also had problems with their subjects.

What can be said in conclusion therefore is that much as the said indirect rule registered some failures in non kingdom areas, it was to a large extent very successful especially in kingdoms areas. And it eventually became successful the whole of East Africa.

EFFECTS OF INDIRECT RULE

A lot of criticism has been advanced against indirect rule as a policy part of which included the fact that indirect rule encouraged parochialism among the natives and their rulers which made it difficult to eradicate even during the post independence period.

Indirect rule also greatly retarded progress of self governance for the Africans by excluding the elite society from participating in government i.e indirect rule as a policy perpetuated European rule rather than African self rule.  it is little wonder therefore that the policy greatly registered resistances from the elite class in areas such as Nigeria, Ghana among others where it started from.

It also imposed petty British autocracy on the people under the guise of the training their African traditional rulers for self governance.  However, it would be noted that the African rulers were not given real lessons of leadership but activities like supervision of grass cutting, being punished for their independent views, dictate upon them how to impose taxes, appoint chiefs all in the names of expert advise of the colonial officer.  In other words all that this policy did was to represent interest of the British government and therefore with or without British officials working directly or indirectly the difference was more of a myth than a reality as Adu Boahen rightly concludes:

"Indirect rule in reality was the most indirect method of ruling directly".

It should however be noted that indirect rule had its own weakness for example it contributed to the collapse of African traditional authority. Like in Buganda, after 1900 agreement, the Kabaka lost powers in making laws, collecting tax revenue and controlling land.  The Lukiiko also lost its traditional role in society.

Sir Harry Johnston in the colonisation of East Africa.

 Harry Johnstone was an outstanding imperialist in East Africa. He came to East Africa in 1884 as a scientist.

Harry Johnston had the view that the British would bring about civilisation of East Africa. He moved from Zanzibar to Kilimanjaro area and established a base at Moshi.

He made friends with the Chagga and the Taveta. Harry Johnston signed a treaty with the Taveta chiefs on 27^th September 1884. The Taveta gave him a lot of land where he planted wheat.

In 1899 Harry Johnston was made a Special Commissioner to Uganda.

Sir Edward Fredie Mutesa Walugembe II was a young prince when Sir Harry Livingston was posted to Uganda

The British government was anxious to reduce its financial aid to Uganda which risen from 89,000 pounds per annum in 1897 to 397,000 in 1899.

There was need for the colonies to contribute to the cost of administration.

Harry Johnston associated with missionaries to convince the regents of the Kabaka to sign the 1900 Buganda agreement. The regents were Sir Apollo Kaggwa, Zakaria Kasingiri and Stanslus Mugwanya.

The terms of the 1900 agreement catered for the revenue collection where hut tax and gun tax of 3 rupees were to be collected.

About half of Buganda was made a crown land that to say it was owned by the British government.

Through this agreement British rule was confirmed over Buganda and Uganda.

Harry Johnston used the same methods to gain revenue, land and authority over Toro and Ankole.

Karl Peters in the Colonisation of East Africa

Karl Peters operated in Tanganyika from November 1884 and contributed to the formation of the "society of German colonisation".

Karl Peters signed treaties with the local chiefs of Usambara, Unguru, Uzimbwa between river Pangani and Rufigi.

The treaties signed by Karl Peters were used to approve or confirm the German protectorate over the area

He started in colonies the "German Colonisation society" which was later given a loyal charter and renamed German East African Company (GEA).

The GEA Company under Karl Peters competed with the IBEA Company.

Karl Peters was cruel and had a forceful character, which later led to rebellions because of harsh punishments. His inflicting on the natives.

Karl Peters forced the Sultan of Zanzibar to agree to the German demand of appointing a Commission to extend German territory.

He contributed to the Anglo-German agreement of 1886 which limited the Sultan to the 10 miles strip at the coast.

Karl Peters reached Buganda and signed a treaty with Kabaka Mwanga in 1890 which was to place Buganda under German rule.

He also signed a treaty with Nabongo Mumia of Wanga Kingdom in Western Kenya and Nyanza province was also to come under German rule.

Karl Peters treaties signed with Mwanga of Buganda and Nabongo Mumia of Wanga stimulated the British take over of Uganda and Kenya.

This led to the signing of the Second Anglo-German agreement in 1890 where German abandoned all claims in the North and was only confined in the South Tanganyika.

The Germans gave up Witu to the British, to up Heligoland in the North Sea. He encouraged the German traders to come to East Africa under the German East African Company.

Karl Peters played a leading role in the weakening of the Sultan power along the East African coast.

This colonialist became so brutal and obsessed with the German supremacy that he was brought to trial, found guilty and was dismissed in 1896.

In conclusion therefore, Karl Peters was an important German administrator who contributed to colonisation of Tanganyika. His being demoted and dismissal is an indicator that the Germans insisted on disciplined officers to do their work.