When it comes to the development of a colonized nation often, there is often an assumption that all colonies under British control that have achieved independence have become successful in development and economic growth. Botswana and Nigeria are two former British colonial states that discovered a wealth of resources post-independence. Yet the management of these resources differed enough to yield stark differences in their results, which were influenced by the legacy of British colonialism. Oil-rich Nigeria became the poster-nation for the resource curse, while Botswana was able remain un-afflicted by it. Despite sharing legacies of colonization under British rule, each state has had a different trajectory in post-colonial development. Regardless of the basic similarities of being colonized by Great Britain, Botswana and Nigeria have both had vastly different outcomes because of the impacts of different legacies of colonization on each country. In this paper, I argue that each country was set on a different trajectory because of the differences in how the British ruled Nigeria and Botswana. I will show that these differences arose from the differences in A) the impact of colonization on pre-colonial institutions, B) the level of involvement and type of colonial rule, and C) the role of culture.
Situated in Western Africa on the Gulf of Guinea, Nigeria’s borders had been arbitrarily drawn by Europeans. Within the borders, Nigeria is a heterogeneous nation that is home to diverse groups of people. Although it has been difficult to estimate the current population size, the country has been growing at about 2.7 percent per annum since the 1960s and the population of Delta, Rivers, and Bayelsa states exceeds 7 million (Watts). Pre-colonial Nigeria encompassed different societies with different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups that were then boxed in together under British rule. Each group lived under different administration or political arrangements (Seidler), with no common institutions binding each society together. These groups and systems included the Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani. The different societies in pre-colonial Nigeria had a mix of centralized and decentralized administration and Islam had a dominant presence in pre-colonial Northern Nigeria that carried over into post-colonial Nigeria.
When the British colonized present-day Nigeria, the British ruled through indirect rule and remodeled political systems and hierarchies into chiefdoms, in which local rulers served as extensions of British power. Although this required a reliance on existing precolonial structures to carry out British rule, in some cases, this resulted in the “creation of tribes” as the British resorted to appointing local rulers in areas where clear political hierarchies were in place or sometimes even were in place (Willis). These leaders became salaried officials (Seidler). In some Nigerian communities, legitimacy of authority depended upon the traditional patron-client system in the village. The indirect rule as implemented by the British “imposed a decentralized despotism, orchestrated through regional rule by the powerful ethnic (and regional) majorities (Watts).” The increased power of the regional ethnic majorities in each area meant that the ethnic minorities were increasingly marginalized.
Elitism in pre-colonial Nigeria predates British rule over the territory, but the elitism was transformed through colonization (Nash). Although the new system of indirect rule depended upon local cooperation, it also transformed the existing hierarchal structures to meet the needs of the colonizers. Part of this process included educating indigenous people and then placing them into Nigerian leadership roles and fortified the elite class. As chiefs were “chosen for their legitimacy rather than ability, they became less and less capable of running the bureaucratic structures of local government units (Crowder and Kime).” This challenge resulted in increased employment of the ‘newly’ educated Nigerian elite, which included the military.
Under British rule taxation was streamlined in an effort to simplify the tax system and also garner profits for the British. Through British systemic taxation on Nigerians, many Nigerians had no option but to produce more than needed, which fractured the existing subsistence economies (Coleman). Another significant change that occurred from the tax system was that local leaders were no longer financially independent as any private additional source of income was deemed corrupt. As a result, these leaders were unable to give gifts to clients in alignment with the traditional patron-client system, which weakened their legitimacy (Seidler). As the British were able to strengthen their control over Nigeria, the main economic policies at the time largely neglected internal markets and aimed to increase exports and imports and international trade “International trade was almost monopolized by a few European companies, such as the United Africa Company (UAC).”
Property rights were also another issue of contention in colonial Nigeria. In the north, any person, whether European or Nigerian, was prohibited from acquiring a freehold title. The South differed in that it developed early forms of individual land tenure (Coleman). The land laws implemented in colonial Nigeria inhibited fast economic integration with the European economy, despite British intentions, and also hindered the migration of Nigerians within the country. Due to this, “ethnic groups from overpopulated land (such as for example was the case of the Ibo territory in the South) were not allowed to settle in other areas (Seidler).
Contrary to Nigeria, Botswana has risen as an example of how a former British colony in Africa was able to successfully manage its resource wealth. Despite being formerly British-ruled like Nigeria, there are a number of observable differences between the two countries. Botswana is smaller than Nigeria and its population has fewer people. Instead of being on the coast, it is land-locked and also considered ethnically homogeneous, although there are minority ethnic groups within the country. Prior to British invasion, ancestors of the modern Tswana tribes migrated into present-day Botswana and conquered the indigenous San people and other tribes, who were then assimilated into the Tswana community (Acemoglu et al.). The population density of precolonial Botswana was low, but the administration of the systems of governance was centralized. Each morafe (tribe) was led by a Kgosi (chief) who was held the highest position of power. The kgosi acted as the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of each tribe, but the Tswana society had its own institution that served as a forum for “policy formulations, decision making, including political and economic development activities and judiciary on litigations (Moumakwa).” Not only was the kgotla a place for discussion of public interests, but they also served as a place to effectively criticize the kgosi and they were inclusive of outsiders who were amalgamated into Tswana tribal structures (Acemoglu et al). Amongst the Tswana, land was collectively owned while cattle were privately owned. This institution of private property would carry over into colonial Botswana and would aid the country in setting up good institutions of private property post-colonialism.
After becoming a British protectorate, Britain ruled indirectly in Botswana. Unlike other colonial African states, the British had never sought to colonize Botswana. Due to threats of outside invasion from white settlers in Zimbabwe and Afrikaaners in South Africa, the Batswana approached the British for protection under the crown and were eventually granted status as a protectorate in 1885 (Nash). For the British, Botswana’s importance was predominantly based upon its location because it “Suddenly Botswana occupied an important strategic position blocking Germany Southwest Africa on one side and the Boer states on the other (Acemoglu).” and not because of any perceived value of the land.
The motives for Britain to take in Botswana as a protectorate influenced the softer approach to colonizing Botswana, now known as the protector of Bechuanaland. The official statement from the British was quoted in Picard’s The Politics of Development in Botswana as, “We have no interest in the country to the north of the Molope [the Bechuanaland Protectorate], except as a road to the interior; we might therefore confine ourselves for the present to preventing that part of the Protectorate being occupied by either filibusters or foreign powers doing as little in the way of administration or settlement as possible.” As a result, the British spent very little on development or investments in Botswana, with 75% of expenditures going directly to administrative costs (Parson). When it came to existing precolonial institutions, such as the kgotla, the British didn’t interfere with the system in place, but allowed it to evolve into a tool for people to express their concerns, show support or rejection of policies initiated by the government and for the government to explain policies and initiatives to the people (Moumakwa). It wasn’t until after 50 years of neglecting Botswana that the British tried to tighten their control and increase their power, but to no avail because of challenges by two chiefs (Acemoglu).
As a British protectorate, Tswana speaking-groups lived on Native Reserves, people of non-Tswana speaking origin lived in areas called the Crown Lands, and white settlers lived outside on land outside the reserves and Crown Lands. Dating back to the 1920s, these groups produced “a new Western-educated elite whose Christian-liberal and democratic views would come to challenge those of the older traditional elites (Nash).” However, the elite of Botswana today is a fusion of old and new with an elite group including elected leaders, traditional leaders, top-level bureaucrats, the business elite, and rich farmers (Martin).
Despite sharing a history of colonization under British rule, Botswana and Nigeria have had stark differences in their development trajectories that were influenced by precolonial and colonial conditions. Nigeria’s demographic was significantly more heterogeneous than Botswana’s, and while Botswana had ethnic minorities and an ethnic majority, there was no domination of one ethnic group or another. Precolonial and Colonial Botswana promoted amalgamation of people and cultures within the country’s borders and experienced very little impact of colonization unlike Nigeria, which endured ethnic tensions throughout its history and experienced heavier involvement from the British. The precolonial institutions, such as the kgotla, that were left in place set the foundations for democracy. It was these tribal institutions “that encouraged broad based participation and constraints on political leaders during the pre-colonial period; only limited effect of British colonization on these pre-colonial institutions because of the peripheral nature of Botswana to the British Empire; the fact that upon independence, the most important rural interests, chiefs and cattle owners, were politically powerful (Acemoglu et al).” The difference in impacts of colonization and precolonial conditions paved the way for Botswana to both perpetuate old institutions and implement new institutions that allowed for democratization while the impacts of colonization and precolonial conditions in Nigeria, set the country up for ethnic tensions, conflict, and corruption of an elite group and ethnic majorities. These differences would not only have profound roles in how the country was ruled and the power that the populations held in holding their governments accountable, but also how each country’s natural resources were exploited and managed
Works Cited
Acemoglu, Daron A, et al. “An African Success Story: Botswana.” In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth, Princeton University Press, 2012, pp. 80–119.
Badawy, Eslam. Botswana and Nigeria: Same Colonial Legacy but Different Paths. University of Minnesota, 2015.
Coleman, James. Nigeria. Background to Nationalism. University of California, 1963.
Crowder, Michael, and Obaro Ikime. West African Chiefs: Their Changing Status Under Colonial Rule and Independence. Africana Publishing Corporation and University of Ife Press, 1970.
Martin, Philippe. “A Closer Look at Botswana’s Development: The Role of Institutions.” Paterson Review, vol. 9, 2008.
Nash, Sheldon R. State and Natural Resource Exploitation: A Comparative Analysis of Nigeria and Botswana. University of Kansas, 2016.
Parson, Jack. Botswana: Liberal Democracy and the Labor Reserve in Southern Africa. Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, 1984.
Picard, Louis A. The Politics of Development in Botswana : a Model for Success?Boulder, L. Rienner Publishers, 1987.
Piwane C. Moumakwa. The Botswana Kgotla System. University of Tromso, 2010.
Seidler, Valentin. Colonial Legacy and Institutional Development: The Cases of Botswana and Nigeria. WU Vienna University, August 2011.
Watts, Michael. “Resource Curse? Governmentality, Oil and Power in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.” Geopolitics, vol. 9, no. 1, 2004, pp. 50–80.
Willis, J. “The Administration of Bonde, 1920-60: A Study of the Implementation of Indirect Rule in Tanganyika.” African Affairs, vol. 92, 1993. pp. 53-67.
Yates, Douglas A. The Scramble for African Oil: Oppression, Corruption and War for Control of Africa’s Natural Resources. London: New York, Pluto Press; Distributed in the United States of America Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Jennifer Kim 