French Colonial Policy
Public discussion of colonial policy in France during the latter 1800s and into the twentieth century revolved around two principal concepts, one labeled assimilation, the other association. The assimilation policy was based on the assumption that all men are equal and thus should be treated alike and reflected the universalist and egalitarian ideas of the French Revolution. At the same time, however, the idea of universalism was tied to French culture, which proponents of assimilation indirectly maintained was superior to all others. Thus in practice assimilation meant the extension of the French language and French institutions, laws, and customs to the people of the colony.
In contrast, under the concept of association Africans were to keep their own customs—insofar as these were compatible with French aims—and different systems of laws and institutions would be applied in the colonies to the French and the Africans. Advocates of the concept left no doubt, however, that the French were to be the rulers and the Africans the subjects.
In actual practice colonial policy as applied in Guinea (and other West African colonies) was one neither of assimilation nor of association. The assimilation concept of French cultural superiority was embraced by most colonial administrators, who saw themselves as the instruments of a vivilizing mission and felt that the African subject should be happy to accept the free gift of French culture. The idea of equal citizenship implied in assimilation was not in general accepted, however; and although provision for citizenship was made, the procedure and requirements resulted in its being granted to relatively few individuals.
The concept of association also soon became a hollow term describing French-developed procedures that increasingly relegated the African to an inferior status and concentrated more and more power in French hands. Some colonial administrators did advocate continuance of the traditional chieftainships, but nothing came of this. Early in the colonial era chiefs who opposed the French were eliminated, and others willing to accept a subordinate status were appointed. The administrative authority of such chiefs was reduced to the execution of French orders, and their judicial powers were curtailed and brought under French supervision. Parallel with their loss of temporal power occurred a diminution of their religious role and prestige. Eventually, except in remote villages, the French ruled either directly or through chiefs who functioned essentially as French agents.
French African colonial policy in general was best described as highly pragmatic. The real aim of the colonial administration was to integrate the colony into an imperial system that would bring the greatest benefit and glory to the mother country. There was no change in this policy from the late nineteenth century to World War II as businessmen and bureaucrats developed vested interests in the system and successfully resisted any real liberalization of policies, despite the agitation against colonial exploitation that developed in France in the 1930s.
In general, French public opinion was too preoccupied most of the time with domestic affairs to take great interest in colonial matters. These were the special domain of the bureaucracy under the Ministry of the Colonies, which administered all overseas possessions except Algeria (treated as part of Metropolitan France) and the protectorates of Morocco, Tunisia, and the Levant. The only concessions made by bureaucracy to liberal public opinion were minor reforms that led to administrative decentralization, the establishment of consultative councils on which Africans had a few seats, and the granting of French citizenship to a few Africans on an individual basis.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
