Colonial Rule and Conquest in Africa

One of the most enduring contributions of colonialism was the creation of territorial states with
fixed borders. Herbst (2000) notes that before the Berlin Conference of 1884–85, European
involvement in Africa was largely coastal through trade but had little formal control of the
interior. The scramble for Africa changed this dramatically: within a few decades, ten million
square miles and over one hundred million people were brought under European rule. The Berlin
Conference institutionalized the principle of “effective occupation,” requiring colonial powers to
map, claim, and administer territories (Herbst, 2000: 60–65). This imposed a European
conception of sovereignty—clear, rigid borders—onto African political landscapes that had
previously been characterized by fluid frontiers and overlapping authority. Thus, colonialism
brought Africa into the international state system, but the states it created were artificial, often
cutting across ethnic and cultural lines.

Mamdani (1996) explains that colonialism in Africa created a double system of rule in what he
calls a bifurcated state. Through direct and indirect rule where in which urban areas, people were
treated as “citizens” under European civil law, while in rural areas, the natives were governed as
“subjects” ruled by chiefs under “customary law.” This system was based on race (Europeans vs.
Africans), by tribe, and by location (rural vs. urban).

This “customary law” was invented by colonial rulers to give chiefs strong powers and keep
rural people under control. Mamdani calls this system decentralized despotism because chiefs
had authority over almost every part of village life. By dividing Africans into citizens and
subjects, and by enforcing ethnic and tribal differences as it exaggerated differences, colonialism
made it harder for people to unite and resist. In this way, colonial rule exaggerated divisions and
built authoritarian structures that lasted even after independence.

This had effects because colonial boundaries cut across ethnic groups, languages, and
communities, forcing very different peoples into the same state while splitting others across
multiple states.
Indirect rule played a significant role in creating divisions across Africa, dividing people into
different tribes. This was a successful tool used by the British because when they fragmented the
people, it allowed them to effectively rule them (The African Trumpet 2022, 1:18-1:42).
However,
this fragmentation in places like Kenya has created permanent minorities (The African Trumpet
2022, 1:42-1:58). This method of rule was used again in post-colonial Kenya by politicians; this
Then has shaped politics in Kenya to be centered around ethnic alliances (The African Trumpet
2022, 5:26-5:46). The major groups, like the Kikuyu and Luo, have mostly been mobilized by
politicians and are the most represented; however, small groups become excluded and do not
have
much political representation and power compared to the dominant ethic groups (The African
Trumpet 2022, 5:46-8:18). This creates a lot of ethnic tensions and clashes in Kenya because of
the differences in power and influence that each ethnic group has.

In essence, in Kenya, ethnic identity has become a central feature of politics, with leaders often
mobilizing support along tribal lines rather than promoting national unity. Elections frequently
reflect ethnic blocs, as communities such as the Kikuyu, Luo, and Kalenjin tend to vote for
candidates from their own groups.

Ethnic tension and violence often occur across many African countries, and it is often argued that
cultural differences among people instigate this conflict because of differences in ethnicity,
language, or religion. Posner (2004) argues against these assumptions because cultural
differences
cannot be the sole cause of ethnic tensions. Ethnic differences play a little role in the political
and
social conflicts that occur in countries across Africa. Cultural divisions and differences only
matter
because of the size of the ethnic group. Posner (2004) discusses two ethnic groups that exist in
two
countries, the Chewas and Timbukas, which are found in Malawi and Zambia. This author argues
that Chewas and Timbukas in Zambia do not have political and social tensions, and they usually
view themselves as being the same (Posner 2004, 531). However, in Malawi, things are the
opposite because these two groups are adversaries and conflict with one another. Posner (2004,
535) argues that the size of an ethnic group matters because it becomes important for politicians
to mobilize them for political interests. Smaller groups do have differences with others, but then
their cultural cleavage becomes less important because these groups are small (Posner 2004,
535).
In Zambia, Chewas and Timbukas are small groups, and they get along because they are not used
by politicians (Posner 2004, 538). In Malawi, both groups are large, hence they are weaponized
by politicians, and divisions are instigated by elites in their attempt to gain mass mobilization to
fulfill their political interests (Posner 2004, 538).

Rwanda: division between the Hutu and Tutsi created conflict between people who were once
united, leading to the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Second Essay from Part B: War, Terrorism, and Insurgency