Relevance of - United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

• Impact on decentralized systems
In the formerly decentralized traditional systems, such as those of the Ibo of Eastern
Nigeria, the Tonga in Zambia, and the Masai in Kenya, the colonial State invented
chieftaincies and imposed hierarchical rule on its subjects. In some cases, the ‘invented’
chiefs used their power to enrich themselves and upon differentiating themselves from
their communities, they subverted traditional political values (Tosh, 1973). In many other
cases, however, the invented chieftaincies were unsuccessful in displacing the consensusbased
governance structures (Gartrell, 1983). The warrant chiefs appointed by the British
colonial State were, for example, unable to replace the traditional system of village council
among the Ibo of Nigeria (Uwazie, 1994). The Eritrean village baito also survived
colonialism largely intact. The district administrators appointed by the colonial State
acted primarily as tax collectors and the village heads appointed by such administrators
largely presided over village assemblies and pronounced the consensus that emerged from
an assembly’s deliberations rather than assume the role of decision-makers.
• Impact on centralized systems
The impact of colonialism upon the centralized authority systems was much greater, as it
largely transformed the form and content of chieftaincy and, thus, the relations between
chiefs and their communities, as Coplan and Quintan (1997) indicate in the case of Lesotho.
The colonial State either demoted or eliminated African leaders who resisted colonization
or rebelled after colonization (Busia, 1968). Leaders who submitted to colonial rule were
mostly incorporated into the colonial governance structure of indirect rule, which was
designed to provide the colonial State with a viable low-cost administrative structure to
maintain order, mobilize labour, enforce production of cash crops, and collect taxes.
Incorporation severely weakened both the formal and informal mechanisms of
accountability of traditional leaders to the population by changing the power relations
between chiefs and their communities. Under colonialism, chiefs could be removed from
power only by the colonial administration. Chiefs were also given control of land, thereby
curtailing the ability of ordinary people to shift their allegiance to other chiefs.
It is often argued in the post-independence literature that colonialism transformed chiefs
into mere civil servants of the colonial State. It is likely, however, that this view is often
exaggerated. The roles of Hausa chiefs in Nigeria and Niger, for example, were affected
differently by colonialism, with the power of those in Niger reduced more severely (Miles,
1987). As intermediaries between the colonial State and local peoples, chiefs were expected
to maintain peace and order within their communities. To be effective administrators,
chiefs had to maintain their legitimacy with their communities.
This required that they attempt to ease the burden of colonialism by interceding with
colonial authorities on behalf of their people and by protecting the interests of their