Anti-colonialism and independence Discuss the proposition that independence movements represented the interests of their middle-class leaders and not of the rural poor

Authors Avatar

J. Maxey – Dev. Studies – C&A – Essay 2:  Anti-colonialism and Independence  –  Teacher:  N. Khan

Page  of

Week 7:  Anti-colonialism and independence

Discuss the proposition that independence movements represented the interests of their middle-class leaders and not of the rural poor

In this essay, there shall be an exploration into whether independence movements represented the interests of their middle-class leaders and not of the rural poor.  First, the definition of class shall be looked at and what the middle classes and rural poor hoped to gain through independence. Then, this piece will turn to the influence of African and Indian heroic leaders on the equalitarian nature of independence movements and examples where issues of communalism and racial discrimination were more prominent than the issue of class. Lastly, there will a comparison between examples where colonial elites and intellectuals stood to gain from independence and where socialist issues were at the heart of the nationalists’ agenda and whether or not this was purely rhetoric.

Under the capitalist mode of production, Marx described society as dividing into two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. “Landlords and capitalists form the ruling class and secure an excellent standard of living, and political power, by using their ownership of the means of production. From this position they exploit the mass proletariat.” The rural poor are made up predominantly of those peasants who mainly rely on a pre-capitalist mode of production. Many peasants constitute part of the modern capitalist economy in addition to the traditional subsistence economy, as they sell their labour power for instance.  Unlike India and Ethiopia, but characteristic of most of Africa, was that communalism rather than fuedalism preceeded capitalism.

In Egypt, for instance, it was only with the colonial government permitting Egyptians to own land, as well as expanding educational opportunities, and raising some to officer status in the army that a middle-class emerged. Non-marxists “seek other explanations of social interaction, and talk of ‘elites’ and ‘groups’ rather than ‘classes’.”  The new elite of post-colonial states are referred to as the “administrative bourgeoise” or a “colonial elite” and this group of individuals occupied positions as civil servants, teachers, intellectuals, army officers and professionals. For the sake of simplicity, this piece shall deem the rural poor as the peasantry group working and/or desiring ownership of farming smallholdings, and the middle-class deemed as corresponding to the colonial elite.

Independence movements can be viewed as a protracted struggle over a long period of time: from native resistance to colonisation, their opposition to specific policies, selling their labour-power and competing for social elevation, and lastly achieiving independence itself. The third period, effectively native acceptance of the colonial state framework, marked the creation of new elites who “realized they could use the new structures to pursue their own interests, which might or might be those of the masses.” This small emerging middle-class, began perceiving the Europeans as harming their interests, even with colonial education having improved their socio-economic position. In Senegal, “as the African elite group increased in size and educational level, its members expected better jobs,”  but they felt threatened with, post 1900, “an influx of Europeans coming to their country seemed to impede the advance of young Africans in business and administration.” 

Other groups also failed to oppose the whole colonial state, instead “acting when they percieved that specific colonial policies hurt their vital interests,”  especially when “of a kind that upset traditional social, economic and political systems.” Rural poor Kenyans became extremely rebellious though, as “within a space of a generation they had effectively been converted from independent peasants, producing cash crops for the new markets, into peasants dependent on agricultural wage-labour.” They were initially undermined by land-grabbing tactics of the colonial government who favoured their own commercial interests above rural Kenyan wishes for self-sufficiency. However, the emerging capitalist-minded, Kenyan middle-classes first supported traditionally-unfriendly colonial policies that subordinated the rural poor to their own economic ambitions and continued once they had displaced the imperial administrators.

Join now!

Three types of leader existed throughout the stages of  protracted struggle:  precolonial leaders and military specialists, pre-colonial leaders who espoused to socialist ideals of change and those with much European education and completely alienated from precolonial political systems.  Harry Thuku, a Kikuyu leader, can be considered non-middle-class as he never gained a formal education. Though, “the view several African nationalists who led their countries to independence was of a classless Africa,” the existence of traditional communalism was rife.  Prior to rebelling against the colonial authority, Thuku secured civil service employment because of his descendancy from early Kikuyu leaders.

Even with wielding ...

This is a preview of the whole essay