Was Decolonization Beneficial for Former Colonies - Essay Example

?Was decolonization beneficial for former colonies? The benefits of decolonization cannot be generalized for all former colonies; however, the impactof decolonization was felt on political, social, economic, and ethnical aspects in a significant, yet varied manner and it also transformed the future of former colonies. The various benefits of decolonization cannot be denied- as in many cases, it was the result of a long struggle to attain independence. Emancipation from foreign rule was yielded by nationalist zeal, and sacrifices of the masses and was considered as the major benefit of decolonization. Freedom came at a heavy price and it did not deliver economic prosperity or improved the socio-economic conditions of the former colonies. “If colonialism distorted economies, freedom did not always deliver prosperity... The rights of nations to sovereignty begged the question of defining a nation. Most successor states were ethnically diverse, bounded by arbitrary frontiers. ...New education and training institutions could not immediately cope with the aspirations of burgeoning population. Few ex-colonies responded as planned, to strategies of agricultural intensification and economic diversification.”(Kuper 2005, p.136) Decolonization was not all about attaining sovereignty as a nation; as it posed new and bigger challenges in order to survive in post-colonial era. Colonialism had lasted for centuries and the traditional models of government and social life had been transformed greatly. Everything was under the influence of the colonial empires and decolonization could not reverse this fact. Everything needed to evolve naturally and to adjust to the changing world scenario. Where decolonization brought waves of joy for the peoples who had fought for it, it also brought inadequate political, social and economical infrastructures that were formerly being looked after by the colonialists. Although the new governments tried to motivate their peoples to work for their national interests, yet inadequate financial and technical resources kept the progress at a slow level. The public offices were formerly kept by the colonialists and with their departure, the responsibility fell into the hands of nascent bureaucracy and political administration. Thus, coping with the issues and demands of an aspirant society became overwhelming. Nonetheless, few colonies were in a better position to evolve naturally out of decolonization into independent and sovereign states that had adequate infrastructure to shift from colonization to decolonization in a smooth and planned manner. The newly formed governments had to tackle numerous issues at the same time. While they had gained freedom with their national spirit; yet it became difficult for them to define the term ‘nation’. The power game involved leaders from diverse ethnic groups and inner conflicts always tended to destabilize their political structures. “The Caribbean, southeast Asia, and the Middle East join Africa as regions marked by places of despair and desperation, of those ecologies where shattered dreams are found in cracked foundations and high hopes cannot be seen behind the huge piles of garbage. In such places, the sounds of strife and disorder have frequently been heard. Civil war, overthrow of governments, and ethnic conflicts has been common eruptions in much of Africa and Southeast Asia since the time that the regions were politically reconfigured into nation states.” (Betts 2004, p.103) This is a widespread opinion of critics that have witnessed decades of turmoil in former colonies. Failure to adjust to the new world order plunged them further into darkness. Their progress and development was impeded by the continual communal violence and insurgencies. Their national spirit could not unite them as a nation and in such cases decolonization was not at all beneficial for them. As a colony, at least they were enjoying some sort of peace, progress and economic development. Upon decolonization, their economic conditions worsened without any hope. The colonialists had exploited the natural and human resources of their colonies to a great extent. Decolonization was not the sole result of nationalist movements in the colonies. It was coupled with the post-World War 2 scenario that compelled the colonialists to liberate their colonies as the colonial powers did not find it feasible to rule their colonies directly. The process of decolonization needed strategic planning and execution. Ideally, it should have been done in phases; but on the whole, the colonialists were eager to wrap up from their colonies and ill planned handing over of the governments to the local people was rather done in a hasty manner. Therefore, it led to a plethora of troubles for the former colonies. In this context, decolonization cannot be deemed beneficial for former colonies. This process was thus not beneficial for former colonies as it burdened the newly elected representatives with tasks beyond their scope. One of the aims of attaining sovereignty by the former colonies was to reinstate their generic political systems and to get hold of their raw materials, farming, agriculture, trade, industry, commerce and precious commodities. To many of them, the sense of being in power of their own destinies was enough to strengthen their spirit of nationalism and to fight for freedom. “In general, Sukarno asserted that decolonization and decolonization’s natural corollary, national independence, were not just the fulfilment of basic human rights, but a fundamental guarantee of world peace.” (Christie 2001, p 133) In this regard, decolonization was beneficial for former colonies as it gave its citizens the freedom of choice, freedom of expression, freedom of electing their own representatives, and freedom to claim their country’s resources as their own. Decolonization fulfilled this basic human right and by doing so, prevented chaos and turmoil that often results from violation of human rights. Oppressed societies harbour hatred for the oppressive forces and by decolonization, according to Sukarno, universal peace was guaranteed. This opinion is also contradicted in history as the colonies after gaining independence turned against each other on the basis of their ethnical conflicts. Therefore, the benefits of decolonization regarding basic human rights might be true, but universal peace could not be attained. Decolonization allowed the natives to participate in the general and local elections and to create a dynamic society that was adjusting to the new world order. More jobs were also created or left vacant once the colonies were decolonized by their imperial masters. By having a direct control of trade, commerce, politics, education, social system and agriculture there were more chances for them to carve out more jobs for themselves. This could not be done for a number of reasons: the most important was the lack of finances. The restrictions on trade policies and backward systems of agriculture did not help in boosting trade, commerce and neither did the agriculture system was improvised. Perhaps the colonialists had purposely kept their colonies backward, so as to have a willing market for their products to be consumed; or to have plenty of cheap raw food products from its former colonies for decades to come. Decolonization actually paved way for authoritarian or dictatorial rules in many former colonies such as: Indonesia, Pakistan, and many African countries. Politically elected governments have lasted for relatively shorter time periods for various reasons. The reason is that the inherent and generic systems of governments of the colonies were uprooted by the colonialists and new political systems were introduced to suit the interests of the colonialists. Upon decolonization, the newly elected governments found it difficult to make political changes, on such large scales in the given time. Their nationalist agendas could not be worked upon in the desirable manner and thus it paved ways for military inventions and dictatorships. The tribal or ethnic conflicts could not be resolved politically and military might was needed to curb civil wars and insurgencies. For many years, the former colonies tried to devise political structures to suit their local environment. As their traditional systems of governments were replaced by colonial administration and later by elected governments, the rulers as well as the masses found it hard to address various national and ethnic issues. Most important of all, there was the danger of aggression or military attack by the neighbouring countries. Under such circumstances, the military heads overthrew the civil governments, also known as a military coup to restore order in the country. But military regimes have always pushed back the progress and development of economies by emphasizing on the defence budget instead of other crucial issues. Military regimes halted all sorts of economic progress and curbed individual freedom. The industrial growth has also been negatively affected by dictatorial rules in former colonies. As dictatorial rules were a consequence of decolonization, therefore, it was not beneficial for the former colonies. “When the clamour for decolonization in western Africa became irresistible after 1960, Britain could not transfer power to the elitist descendants of old settlers- even black settlers- and Freetown had to share power with politicians elected from the provinces. An adequate political culture did not take root, however, and a military tradition of dictatorship gradually developed to eclipse both the country politicians and the city Creoles.” (Birmingham 1995, p.26) The political systems of the colonies could not be defined in a particular context because the local and colonial systems differed greatly. The transfer of power was a crucial process and the colonialists had to leave it to the public to choose their own representatives. This way, the existing political system was replaced by a system based on the choice of the people. The elected people belonged to all walks of life and the ruling class, for the first time in history did not comprise of the elite only. The power had to be shared with the elected representatives of the people after decolonization and this was really beneficial for former colonies as it changed the face of the ruling class. The downside of this option was that tension developed between the two extreme factions of the ruling class that hindered the development and execution of policies. The difference in the opinions, interests, goals and objectives of the two extremes resulted in chaos-thus paving way for military rule. The notion of independence did not come with economic independence for many former colonies. Their inner ethnical conflicts and newly developed policies with inefficient economic resources posed hurdles in the process of development. “After more than four hundred years since the Spanish conquistadores landed in the hemisphere, Latin America remains poor, underdeveloped and stagnant... the exploitation of Latin America by the West has been facilitated by the presence of a distinct ruling class that works in close alliance with foreign companies, banks and other economic enterprises... ...In Africa, the problem of economic independence has two major interrelated complex components. In the first instance, the inherited economic institutions in many countries do not have the capacity to lead to sustained growth and development. They were established to exploit and not to develop these countries... the second problem concerns the leadership.” (Ogot & Ochieng 1995, p.13) Decolonization however was not successful in completely overthrowing the ruling class that was facilitating the ex-colonialists in the exploitation of natural resources, as in the case of Latin America and many African countries. It was for this reason that the economic development came to a standstill in Latin America because those in power deemed it in their personal interests not to let the national economy grow. This shows that power lay in the hands of a few influential persons and institutions were deeply weakened. The socio-economic conditions of the peoples grew from worse to worst, while foreign companies, banks and economic enterprises continued to exploit the natural resources of Latin America. In Africa, the main problems concerning the independence of economy revolved around the inherited economic policies and institutions that were not capable of further developing or sustaining growth. The colonialists had formulated such short-term economic policies that were not efficient to meet the long-termed demands of a growing and developing nation. This was done on purpose to keep Africa economically and politically backward. However, this could not have been made possible without the will of the leaders of that time. Thus decolonization was not beneficial for those former colonies whose leaderships connived against their peoples and depleted the national resources for personal interests. Decolonization might have earned freedom but it has resulted in dependency or heavy reliance on former colonialists or Western powers or international aid agencies. The governments of many former colonies are dependent upon western experts for the development of their industry or commerce. Whether they want to bring reforms in their education, science, technology, or health care- the expertise of western professionals is sought. They also borrow heavily from the international aid agencies to run several health and social reforming programmes. “Status as a colony was thus replaced by status as a debtor and recipient of foreign direct investment. Meanwhile, the assertion of national identity required that all traces of a colonial-like dependant relation be eradicated. This proved to be an insolvable problem facing several countries at the same time.”(Frey, Pruesson, & Yong (Ed.) 2004, p.35) Maintaining national identity became a dilemma for former colonies, as progress and development doesn’t seem to be possible without the aid of developed nations. This can also be termed as a necessity of globalization. The national spirit demands that the states should depend on self reliance and avail its natural resources. Dependant relations with ex-colonialists negate the very essence of nationalism; as nations have to compromise on their national interests for material gains. Decolonization cannot be deemed beneficial for former colonies if they have to survive on dependant relations with ex-colonialists or developed nations. This concept of dependency cannot be applied to all former colonies. According to Zartman (1976), “To some, the successor of colonialism is neo-colonialism and dependency; for others, what is taking place is gradual disengagement, and the multi-lateralization of ties to the developed nations.” (pp. 325-343) The effects of decolonization were different in different regions of the world- and so were the opinions of historians and critics regarding the benefits of decolonization. The negative side of colonialism is dependency and neo-colonialism. This means that the former colonies have entered a stage in which they have failed to survive as a sovereign state and by choice depend on their colonialists. It may have to agree to even such terms and conditions that may question its sovereignty and nationalism. It might have to give unconditional access to the ex-colonialists to its soil, and natural and human resources. Yet there are colonies that have faced and coped with the challenges of decolonization by gradually disengaging from their former colonialists and slowly adapting to the new world order. They have upheld their nationalist views and without compromising on it are enjoying bilateral and multilateral ties with their ex-colonialists. This is beneficial for them as being recognised as an independent and self reliant state is one of the dreams associated with nationalism. Japan is one such example that equipped its colonies with adequate infrastructure and basic education so that they could rely on themselves. “Japanese colonization also provided the colonies with considerable material infrastructure and with quality human resources through the imposition of compulsory primary education.” (Ben-Hammouda 2003, p. 152) The education system introduced during colonialism was designed according to the interests of the colonial powers. It did not suit the national, cultural or religious interests of the colonies. Upon decolonization, the former colonies had to revise the system of education from the scratch. Ironically, the leading educationalists had been educated in the universities of the West and it took years and decades to come up with suitable educational policies and curriculum. Though emphasis was paid upon nationalism- yet they had to look upon the West for improvisations in their educational systems. “Most of the education has been geared toward urban, bureaucratic employment. Most young Africans finish their education after five to eight years and then expect to get a ‘modern’ job. Few are interested or trained in farming, and the opportunities for them to enter in farming are also limited by the unavailability of land.” (Bissell & Radu 1984, p.70) While reforms were being made in education, there were fewer jobs for the young generation once they finished education. Decolonization brought about a huge shift in the workforce of former colonies. The basic infrastructure of almost all former colonies needed workforce in farming and agriculture but this was ignored by the new generation that wanted to acquire modern jobs. The former colonies relied on agriculture before and during colonization. The colonialists depended upon the agriculture of their empires; therefore they had exploited their resources to the fullest. Decolonization witnessed a sharp decline in agricultural practices and rise in urbanization. Thus agriculture was adversely affected and the colonies were ill equipped to advance the agricultural technology to improve its devastating condition. “India processes 1% of the food it grows; the US processes 70% of the food it grows.”1 (Shiva 2002) The comparison between USA and India has been made to show the sharp difference in the agricultural technologies of developed and developing nations. This shows how far India, a former colony of the British Empire has lagged behind other developed countries like the USA. The rapid rise in population was also one of the factors why such countries could not export their agricultural products because their national consumption had already soared high. Even after decolonization, oil refineries, gold and copper mining companies have been set up in former colonies, particularly in Africa. “Western governments and multinational firms devised various means and methods to maintain the economic dependence of former colonies despite their newly achieved status as independent states.” (Kamrava, 2002 p. 32) It is argued that decolonization has made former colonies economically dependent on western governments and multinational firms. The former colonies are considered as the largest markets for the developed countries to sell their goods and products. The cheap labour of the former colonies is also one of the reasons why multinational firms, gold and copper mining companies and oil refineries choose to invest there. By doing so, they establish their monopoly over the natural and human resources which is reminiscence of the colonial past. “Decolonization calls first and foremost reinstitution of African dignity and self reliance. But during the transition, decolonization becomes a politico-socio attempt to settle the dispute over the benefits that were distributed in an extremely lopsided manner during colonialism, particularly in the French colonies, where there were high import duties in France and low export taxes in the colonies.”(Yansane 1980, p.136) The imbalance between high import duties and low export taxes needed to be addressed in post colonial era. But the issue remained the same even after decolonization because of the dependency of African colonies on France. Thus decolonization was not of much significance or beneficial for former colonies in this regard. Decolonization affected all levels of society, trade and commerce of former colonies. Adjusting to the new world order and freedom was not an easy phenomenon. Not having adequate and plenty jobs forced many brilliant young men and women to go to other countries to work. The brain drain of the former colonies was a big blow to their socio-economic infrastructure. “The brain drain is as detrimental as the flight of capital. Economic underdevelopment leads to technological and scientific underdevelopment.” (Memmi 2006, p.11) The youth had played active and important roles in emancipating their countries from colonial rule. They did not wish to turn to agriculture or to live in rural areas of their countries. They had big dreams to pursue and they left their homes in search of greener pastures. Keeping this in view, it can be stated that decolonization was not beneficial for former colonies as it deprived it of its precious youth that could have contributed a lot to the development and progress in the post colonial era. The brain drain created a void in the societies of former colonies and became irreparable loss for the nations. The refugee problem was one of the biggest problems brought about by decolonization. Millions of people lost their lives and millions others were left homeless, or without families. Rehabilitation of refugees required huge infrastructure and capital which was not available at that time. “The most dramatic upheaval, however, was on the Indian subcontinent where communal violence resulted in partition and the creation of two separate states- India and Pakistan- in 1947. An estimated 14 million people were displaced at the time... ...In some instances, the seizure of political power by the military was accompanied by considerable bloodshed, as in Indonesia in 1965-66, when more than 500,000 people are estimated to have been killed. ...With an estimated 10 million people leaving what was then East Pakistan for India between April and December 1971, this became the largest single displacement of refugees in the second half of the century.” (Cutts, p.59) Migration remained a burning issue in the post colonial era and it posed many challenges to the newly elected governments of India and Pakistan who had not expected such a huge exodus of people at the time of independence or decolonization. The refugee problem also became a bone of contention between the two countries that were already at warheads. Such a huge displacement of people from one country to another created an imbalance in population of urban and rural areas. This also gave a huge setback to the agriculture, commerce, trade and industry of the two neighbouring countries. The partition of India and Pakistan and the military coup in Indonesia in 1965-66, and other such instances force a person to believe that decolonization was not so beneficial for the former colonies. Other levels of migration also caused an imbalance in the socio-economic infrastructure of the former colonies. “The selective development of resource rich areas (mines, minerals, plantations agriculture) and urban areas...which serve as the administrative, political, and educational centres, immensely attracted migrants.” (Baker & Akin-Aina 1995, p.92) This led to the depletion of resources by the native population and an increase in urbanization. The unchecked growth of population in urban cities gave rise to numerous problems. The former colonies had to allocate huge defence budget to avoid or to fight invasions or civil wars. This was obtained in the form of military aid from the former colonialists. The term ‘foreign aid’ is ironic in the sense that it actually means that “... loan is embedded in aid. It is usually one of the total packages of aid.” (Aluko & Arowolo 2010, p.2) This was one way of trapping former colonies in huge debts by the colonialists. As the foreign debts mounted, the former colonies had to accept terms and conditions of their creditors, which was just another type of colonialism. During colonialism, “...British tariff regulations required that all colonial trade must be carried on ships owned and registered in Britain... British colonies were forbidden to manufacture or export most goods, with only limited manufacturing allowed.”(Crawford 2002, p.359) After decolonization, the governments of the former British colonies wished to take advantage of global free trade but various other limitations hindered their development and the economic plight of the people remained the same. Even today, health conditions in many former colonies are deplorable. “After independence, many of the governments in the former colonies tried to provide free (highly subsidized) basic health care for their country’s population... The most important factor was that the healthcare infrastructure wasn’t growing fast enough. The population was expanding quickly... the countries’ leaders didn’t have the financial means to set up and sustain an extensive health care system and pay the salaries of the health care staff. In financial desperation, a lot of countries turned to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for (more) loans.” (Develtere, Doyen,& Fonteneau, p. 9) The newly elected governments were saddled with magnanimous responsibilities. With limited resources, they had to cope with various issues on their own. They had to protect their nationalism which was very difficult keeping in view their dependency on their former colonial masters. Global free trade had no meanings for them in the wake of economic crisis and lack of agricultural technology. The fast growing population and urbanization along with refugee problems were enough to destabilize the political systems of former colonies. Even after half a century, the struggle of former colonies to get rid of foreign dependency seems like a dream. Their sovereignty, and international voice and representation in the United Nations are the benefits of decolonization but they have a long way to go to achieve what they had struggled for. References Aluko, F &Arowolo, D 2010, ‘Foreign aid, the Third World’s debt crisis and the implication for economic development: The Nigerian experience’. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 120-127, April 2010 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/ajpsir Baker, J & Akin-Aina, T 1995, The migration experience in Africa, Nordik Africa Institute, Sweden. Birmingham, D 1995, Decolonization of Africa, UCL Press, London. Betts, FR 2004, Decolonization, 2nd ed. Routledge, New York. Ben-Hammouda, H 2003, The political economy of post-adjustment: towards new theories and strategies of development, Ashgate, England. Bissell, ER & Radu, SM (ed) 1984, ‘Africa in the post-decolonization era’. Foreign policy research institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Christie, JC 2001, Ideology and revolution in Southeast Asia, 1900-1980: Political ideas of the anti-colonial era, Curzon Press, Richmond, Surry. Crawford, CN 2002, Argument and change in world politics: Ethics, decolonization, and humanitarian intervention, Cambridge University Press, UK. Cutts, M 2000, UNHCR. ‘The state of the world’s refugees, 2000: fifty years of humanitarian action’, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Develtere, P, Doyen, G, & Fonteneau, B, Micro-insurance and Health Care in Developing Countries An International Picture, Cera Foundation, Belgium. Frey, M, Pruesson, WR, & Yong, TT 2004, The transformation of Southeast Asia: International perspectives on decolonization, Singapore University Press, Singapore. Kamrava, M 2002, Politics and society in the developing world, 2nd ed. Routledge, London. Kuper, A & Kuper, J(ed.) 2005, The Social Science Encyclopedia, 3rd ed. Vol. 1,Taylor&Francis, Oxon. Memmi, A 2006, Decolonization and the decolonized, Trans. Robert Bononno, The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Ogot, AB& Ocheing, RW 1995, Decolonization and independence in Kenya, James Currey Ltd., London. Yansane, YA 1980, Decolonization and dependency: Problems of development of African societies, GreenWood Press. Zartman, WI 1970, ‘Europe and Africa: Decolonization or dependency’. Council of foreign relations, Vol. 54, no. 2. Pp. 325-343. Read More