DEMYSTIFYING THE PARTITION OF AFRICA

DEMYSTIFYING THE PARTITION OF AFRICA

OVERVIEW

There is no even slightly discernable accord among historians and scholars relating to the basic nature as a historical process and the driving forces of the Partition of Africa. All agree that the partition was an extra ordinary flow of European Imperialism. The ability to account for the partition of Africa has been declared an acid test of theories of imperialism and contradictory arguments have been put forward with great intensity. Was it a ‘big bang’, something that European powers undertook abruptly by a premeditated decision, as the familiar illustration of the Map of Africa being drawn in a symposium at Berlin would suggest? or was it somewhat a much more unintentional and slapdash stuff, in which half unenthusiastic powers hauled themselves from one tragedy situation to another, as more recent imperial historiography uphold? Underlying such significant issues is the essential notional and practical question about the scope to and the mode in which the intentions and basis of historical proponents can be taking as comprising the basis of this historical process.

Much might be known about the events of the colonization of Africa but when it comes to the motive behind it, there is no consent of opinion among scholars and historians. Some scholars are of the view that it was driven by pride and prestige. One should take cognizance of the fact that, Germany and Italy, unified, did not have colonial chattels. They then briskly struggled for places in the colonial sun commensurate with their eminence in the community. France envisaged in imperial dominions, recompense for defeat in 1870 and the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. France wanted to demonstrate to the world that she was still a first class nation by acquiring colonies in Africa. One might also argue that the partition was a result of the decoy of markets. Overseas holdings had the latent to furnish raw suits, otherwise unavailable in Europe to feed the Whiteman and his machines. It is equally importance to note that the premeditated reasons and liberalism were other driving forces behind the colonization of Africa. For some the colonization as a result of spontaneous actions dictated by the emergencies in Europe. It is therefore the saddle of this article to explore the several causes that accounts for f this fundamental phase of African history.

The subjugators were primarily driven by anecdotes of Africa’s colossal wealth, bona fide or imaginary, to invade and loot the abundant resources. It is suffice to say that the economic factor was the main drive of the colonization of Africa. I will substantiate my view with that of Uzoigwe (1978: 21) who avow that, the economic motives have always loomed large in the process of empire building. It is of supreme importance to note that, to dismiss economic motivations as an unimportant factor in the colonization of Africa is as subtle as to argue that these motivations alone were the only justifications for the colonization. 

New markets were the invariable of Europe’s captains of industry and merchant princes and it was well that to them that the ears of governments willingly inclined. The imperialists viewed the colonization as a prudent territorial expansion for the creation of new markets. It is important to accentuate that, Britain passed through the Long Depression of 1873 – 96 which led to a growing poise of trade deficit, with attenuation and escalating protectionist markets. The melancholy was blamed for the hostile tariffs. This therefore meant that to avoid the recurrence of such a depression, Britain had to consider Africa. Africa offered an open market that would garner British trade surplus. The Britons therefore thought that acquisition of markets would therefore nullify the adverse effects of hostile tariffs by creating an open door to world trade in particular thus helping them to nurse the dilemma of economic meltdown. Equally important was the impact of the surfacing of America as a large scale world exporter which caused an alarm in the British exports, and this beyond every rational qualm gave rise to the outcry for new markets. Britain like other European countries had long since begun to run an adverse balance of trade which was increasingly offset by the income from overseas investments. Surplus capital was often more profitable invested overseas, particularly in Africa, where cheap labour, limited competition, and copious raw materials made a great premium possible. 

The colonization of Africa also came as a result of the economic state of Europe. Germany united under Prussian rule as a result of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 was seeking new outlets for her energies and new markets for her growing industries. The demand for raw materials unavailable in Europe especially copper, rubber, palm oil, cocoa, diamonds, tea and tin which European consumers had grown habituated to and upon which the European industries had grown utterly dependent on for their economies to remain intact forced the countries to consider Africa for a smooth supply of the much needed resources. Powerful industrial and financial capitalists soon ran out of lucrative areas of investment in their own countries and therefore persuaded their governments to focus their attention on Africa where they could find high profits from their investments, new markets for their products and a safe source of raw materials. That economic motives played a crucial role in the colonization of Africa cannot be denied but a jam-packed understanding of the causes of the colonization requires one to explore other motives as well. 

The other theory which has to be considered is the geo-political or strategic theory. Strategic and political considerations seem to have been of principal importance in bringing the colonization of Africa. Some areas were strategically important for maintaining trade routes to Asia or refueling stations for a worldwide navy. The need to shield the sea route to India and the Far East propelled countries such as Britain to pursue colonies. Britain hoping to link Cairo in the North with Cape Town in the South wanted north-south dominion; therefore, all the territory between the two points gained strategic value. Mauritius was taken from the French because she had the best harbor in the south Indian Ocean. Ceylon was also taken from the Dutch because it controlled those straits to China. This was also a result of the desire for stopover ports in eastern and southern coasts of Africa en-route to Asia and the Indian Empire of Britain. The completion of the Suez Canal made Egypt an area of vital interest because it set astride the shortest route to India. It is important to highlight that; Britain might have had significant strategic reasons for protecting the Suez and cape rotes to India but France and other nations were not pushed by these motives. 

It is also important to underscore that, Pride and Prestige also features in the list of the causes of the colonization of Africa. To report back home and throughout Europe that one nation has acquired thousands of square miles of territory and millions of captive population enhanced the prestige of that nation throughout the world. To a victor in the imperial game meant great national pride. Germany for example began to consider having colonies in Africa despite Bismarck’s lack of enthusiasm for the idea because there was a shift of command in the governing elite. Bismarck, the then Chancellor of Germany had no interest in overseas colonies and once compared them to ‘fire furs worn by impoverished Polish nobles who had no shirts underneath.’ His concern laid in the exposed position of Germany and on one occasion, he said, “My map of Africa lies in Europe…” such statements lost their worth and meaning as the Germany governing elite began to view the world as a finite, one which only the strong would predominate. They were not content with allowing other European countries to expend diplomatic energy on African initiatives. Germany’s pride and prestige were at stake; hence one can safely say that, her participation in the colonization of Africa was as a result of the inevitable struggle for world supremacy. Britain, France, Italy and Germany among other powers wanted to be regarded as forces to reckon in world politics. 

Some historians have pointed to liberalism as a cause of the colonization of Africa. they say the liberal tradition of Europe emphasized on ‘self improvement’ and the ‘perfectibility of man’ the belief combined with Charles Darwin’s ‘new science’ and warping of the statement, ‘survival of the fittest’ by social Darwinism encouraged the view that, Europe was going down into the ‘Dark Continent’ to raise up and civilize the people. To the Europeans nothing seemed paternalistic or racist; they associated the partition, scramble and colonization of Africa with the liberal view of the perfectibility of man. Eurocentric scholars, among them, Hamerow (1969) argue that the Africans were inherently inferior and needed the assistance and protection of the stronger. However this nurture- nature debate shows an inquisitive blend of the wealth seeking and prestige conscious impulses of the imperialists. The exploits of imperialism created tales of wartime glory that fostered exploitation. This therefore laid at bay the liberalism theory as an invalid explanation of the colonization of Africa. Such chauvinistic ideas are attempts by Eurocentric scholars to cover up the impiety of the partition, scramble for and colonization of Africa.

One can safely conclude that, the partition of Africa was an interaction between structural conditions and personal intentions. These created a snare of essential and ample causes acting on one another. The process was conditioned by structural changes unfolding in European economy and politics. It could have hardly happened without the expansionary economic weight and the amplified political rivalry created by the breakthrough of industrial ventures. 

(By Sheunesu Reginald Mpofu

Executive Director, Progressive Youth Alliance)