Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Indirect VS Direct rule in Africa
Transcript of Indirect VS Direct rule in Africa
What is indirect rule?
Officials of the Dutch East India company allowed local landed aristocrats in the Dutch East Indies to control local government. These local elites maintained law and order and collected taxes in return for a payment from the Dutch East India company.
For Indirect rule to be possible you need cooperation from the people. Indirect rule lowered the cost of government, because fewer officials had to be trained. Moreover, indirect rule had less effect on local culture.
What's direct rule?
Colonial government in which local elites are removed from power and replaced by a new set of officials brought from the mother country. More of a dictatorship. Opposite of indirect.
Example of direct rule is in Burma. The monarchy firmly opposed colonial rule. As a result, Great Britain abolished the monarchy and administered the country directly through its colonial government in India.
Colonial government in which local rulers are allowed to maintain their positions of authority and status in a new colonial setting
Which basically means...
One example of indirect rule is in the Dutch Indies
Indirect rule was then convenient and cost less. However, indirect rule was not always possible. Especially whenever local elites resisted. Leading to the second option:
In some instances, both Direct and Indirect rule were used
Which was better?
Depending on the situation, and place, affected whether indirect or direct would be better and more beneficial.
Whoever is in possession of that area, uses someone from that area to enforce the possessors rules to make the citizens feel more comfortable
The British ruled their territories of Africa indirectly. This system of indirect rule in Sokoto, northern Nigeria, had one good feature: it did not disrupt local customs and institutions. However, it had numerous unfortunate consequences.
This system was basically a fraud because British administrators made all major decisions. Another problem was that indirect rule kept the old African elite in power. Therefore, this system wasn't too successful.
Most other European nations governed their African possessions through a form of direct rule.
The french ideal was to assimilate or take in African subjects into French culture rather than preserve native traditions.
Africans were eligible to run for office and even serve in the French National Assembly in Paris. A few were appointed to high positions in the colonial administration. Direct rule for the French was successful.
British colonies included:
Gold coast, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Rhodesia, Union of South America
West Africa, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco
Expanded the British empire
Rhodesia is named after him