The Negative Effects of Indirect Rule on Africans Indirect rule was a system of ruling Africans that sought not to displace African authority, but instead to rule through it. It was first used by the British and later adopted by other European powers after they witnessed its success. Indirect rule is largely considered a more humane alternative to its counterpart, direct rule, which placed colonial powers in charge of all aspects of African administration. Despite this, there were numerous problems with indirect rule in both theory and in practice. Ultimately, indirect rule was hopelessly flawed. In 1922, F.D. Lugard, a colonial officer in Uganda and later Nigeria who came up with the idea of using indirect rule in Africa, published a book titled Dual Mandate in Tropical Africa. In it, he advocated leaving management of African colonies to Africans, subject to the laws of policies of the British colonial staff. He took this position in part because he believed that European culture could not be adopted by Africans, because they were an inferior people (Lugard 76). This is an extraordinary weakness of the theoretical foundations of indirect rule, as Africans have adapted to European society remarkably well in modern times. A theory of governance based on the idea that Africans were innately inferior made the entire approach flawed from the onset. Mahmood Mamdani, who likened indirect rule to “decentralized despotism,” argued that “The central claim of indirect rule… that natives are by nature tribal” (Mamdani 10). Not surprisingly, this claim was cited many times as a justification for the myriad human rights violation that occurred under indirect rule.
Indirect rule was not established out of concern for the Africans. It allowed Britain to say that they were colonizing “less advanced people” in order to help improve their lives, as opposed to