The true question is not which empire governed more wisely, but how deeply colonial power reshaped African political life, and how fiercely Africans continue to resist, renegotiate, and redefine those imposed systems.
By M C Folo The Independentistnews contributor
The proposition that British colonial policy better prepared African territories for post-colonial governance than French colonial policy has divided historians, political scientists, and African intellectuals for decades. At its core lie two contrasting imperial philosophies: British indirect rule and French assimilation, later moderated into association. Both empires spoke the language of civilisation and progress; both governed in the service of empire. Yet the structures they imposed, and the political afterlives they produced, differed profoundly.
Nowhere is this contrast more stark, more tragic, or more instructive than in Cameroon, where British and French colonial systems were not merely compared, but forced to coexist within a single post-colonial state, with consequences that continue to unfold in violence.
The British Case: Indirect Rule and Pragmatic Governance
The British Empire governed much of Africa through indirect rule, most famously articulated by Lord Frederick Lugard. Rather than dismantling indigenous political structures, Britain ruled through them, co-opting chiefs, kings, and emirs into the colonial administration.
Argument for the British Approach
Supporters argue that indirect rule preserved indigenous institutions, encouraged gradual political participation, reduced cultural dislocation, and created space, however limited, for local political evolution. By managing difference rather than erasing it, Britain avoided the total alienation of African societies from governance.
Examples and Impact
Nigeria: The preservation of emirate systems in the north maintained Islamic legal traditions but also entrenched regional and ethnic divisions.
Ghana: Investment in education and civil service training produced an African elite capable of leading the country to independence in nineteen fifty-seven.
Cameroon (British Southern Cameroons): Under British administration, Southern Cameroons developed a common law judicial system, Anglo-Saxon educational institutions, local councils and regional autonomy, and English as a dominant administrative language. Though economically neglected and administratively subordinated to Nigeria, British Southern Cameroons cultivated a strong political identity grounded in the rule of law, decentralisation, and institutional pluralism.
Counterpoint
Critics note that indirect rule often entrenched unaccountable traditional authorities, distorted indigenous systems, and prioritised administrative efficiency over genuine empowerment. In Cameroon, Britain’s failure to grant Southern Cameroons full independence left it structurally vulnerable at reunification.
The French Case: Assimilation, Centralisation, and Cultural Engineering
France pursued a radically different vision. Through assimilation, later moderated into association, French colonialism sought to remake Africans into French citizens linguistically, legally, and culturally. Paris was not merely the capital of France; it was the ideological centre of empire.
Argument for the French Approach
Proponents argue that French colonialism offered a universalist model of citizenship, implemented standardised education and administration, and built centralised states capable of decisive governance.
Examples and Impact
Senegal: The Four Communes produced African deputies such as Blaise Diagne, symbolising limited political inclusion.
Ivory Coast: Centralised governance fostered post-independence stability but discouraged pluralism.
Cameroon (French Cameroun): France imposed a centralised administrative state, civil law traditions, a strong executive presidency, and a unitary vision of nationhood that treated diversity as a problem to be resolved. Indigenous political systems were systematically dismantled and replaced with bureaucratic uniformity.
Counterpoint
In practice, assimilation was selective and exclusionary, hostile to local autonomy, and deeply paternalistic. In Cameroon, this legacy produced a post-colonial state structurally intolerant of institutional dualism.
Cameroon: Where Colonial Philosophies Collide
Cameroon is not merely a case study; it is the debate made flesh. In nineteen sixty-one, British Southern Cameroons reunited with French Cameroun under a federal constitution that explicitly recognised the coexistence of two legal, educational, and administrative systems. That promise did not endure. In nineteen seventy-two, federalism was abolished. In nineteen eighty-four, the state reverted to the name of former French Cameroun. From the Southern Cameroons perspective, reunification became absorption.
The Southern Cameroons Grievance
Southern Cameroonians argue that common law courts have been undermined by civil law practices, Anglo-Saxon education has been progressively diluted through forced harmonisation, and French-speaking officials dominate key institutions. Centralisation mirrors French colonial logic, not the federal bargain of reunification.
What began as lawyers’ and teachers’ protests in two thousand and sixteen escalated into an armed separatist conflict, as groups declared an independent state of Southern Cameroons.
Cameroon today is a battleground between common law and civil law, decentralisation and centralisation, indirect rule’s managed diversity and assimilation’s enforced unity.
Post-Colonial Outcomes: Whose Legacy Endures More Heavily?
The British colonial legacy is visible in parliamentary systems, common law traditions, English as a global administrative language, and decentralised, if unstable, governance. The French colonial legacy persists in centralised presidential systems, civil law codes, cultural and linguistic uniformity, and enduring political and economic ties to France.
Cameroon embodies both legacies, and the violence that can emerge when one seeks to dominate the other.
Verdict: A Debate Without Innocence
To argue that one colonial system was better is to accept a false premise. British and French colonialism were not designed to prepare Africa for freedom, but to manage empire. Their differences lie not in morality, but in method. The British ruled by managing difference. The French ruled by denying it. Cameroon reveals the cost of that denial.
Final Judgment
The true question is not which empire governed more wisely, but how deeply colonial power reshaped African political life, and how fiercely Africans continue to resist, renegotiate, and redefine those imposed systems. Colonialism may have ended in law. In Cameroon, and across Africa, its politics remain alive in practice.
M C Folo
