Colonialism ended with Decolonisation (Essay Sample)

Name Tutor Course Date Colonialism ended with Decolonisation Colonialism can be defined as the occupation, exploitation, expansion and acquisition of a colony in a territory by a sovereign power from another region. A proliferation of such acquisitions occurred in the 19th and 20th century, with industrialised countries seeking to expand their markets and source of raw materials. However, in the second half of the 20th century, there was a recognized need to end this exploitation and as locals started demanding control over their own governance. Among the global milestones towards the end of such territorial occupations was the formation of the Special Committee on Decolonisation at the United Nations. Nonetheless, Maswana asserts that this period did not mark the end of colonisation, but the beginning of a new form of exploitation commonly known as neo-colonialism (96). Neo-colonialism focused on controlling economic frameworks and institutions within a country that were closely linked to power, which is a contrast from the previous form where acquisition of control through state-centric instruments of sovereignty was paramount. During the formation of the Special Committee on Decolonisation, colonialism had several integral attributes such as violent rule and direct exploitation of the citizenry (Reuveny 295). However, Turner highlights that colonialism has evolved, which makes it harder for this UN committee to identify and tackle it (1194). The complexity of the 21st century colonialism is guised under alternative governance support for sovereign governments, which exemplifies a form of interference in national affairs. A majority of governments after independence recognised the fact that they needed support from their former colonisers or other developed nations to grow their countries. This knowledge was based on that most of the locals were not educated and thus their input on developing complex economic and governance structures was limited. Additionally, a majority of the new leaders understood that the industrialization and development orchestrated by colonial governments was beneficial to their countries, and all they were opposed to was foreign rule. Consequently, after independence, these leaders sought partnerships with former colonial powers to ensure sustenance for established structures. This reliance on foreign nations created a suitable environment for the proliferation of neo-colonialism (Altwaiji 313). On the other hand, some of the new leaders used these relationships as a form of security for their governments, especially to curb any form of rebellion similar to what they had employed to gain independence. Previously, the natives were united against an oppressive colonial master that they blamed for their hardships; however, when a change in regime after independence did not solve such problems, the new government was bound to experience some form of resistance. Colonialism was characterised by the acquisition of resources and wealth from local communities. The assumption during anti-colonial rebellion was that this wealth would revert to initial owners after independence; however, some of the new sovereign leaders felt entitled to these resources because of their contribution in fighting for freedom. Such entitlement and subsequent amassing of wealth by local leaders was done in collaboration with colonial governments, which had previous ownership. The creation of such a relationship then meant that former colonisers were actively involved in state affairs, which then gave them power to dictate over events in their former colonies. To understand the complexity of neo-colonialism, one needs to start with the simplistic reasons that initiated previous forms: search for raw materials and expanding markets. A closer analysis of former colonies reveals high trade dependency on their colonisers. Kenya, a former British colony, receives its highest number of tourists from its former coloniser; consequently, before China’s entry into Africa, Britain was the largest source of FDI for this East African country. This fact is indicative that former colonial powers are still achieving their initial objectives even after their colonies transitioned to independent states. The severity of such dependency is exemplified in countries such as Kenya where a policy directive by Britain to advise its citizens from visiting the country has significant ramifications on the former’s tourism sector. Additionally, colonial governments established century-long leases and trade agreements with their former colonies, which ensured that the end of their rule was not synonymous with loss of raw materials supply. In an attempt to reduce neo-colonialism, former colonies, especially in Africa are increasing their trade relations with China. However, as Maswana highlights, this new policy only substitutes one colonial master for another, with the intensified trade dependency on China exemplifying a form of colonialism (95). Indeed this move by African countries is considered as an extension of the rebellion they staged to gain independence, only that it is now characterised by termination of trade relationships and not violent activity. Nonetheless, a logical and holistic evaluation of the new paradigm indicates that China may not have stringent governance demands, but it still aims at exercising a form of control over governments it is assisting. A principal issue arising from the discussions above is on the actual possibility of colonialism ever ending. A majority of former colonies are still classified as developing countries, which highlights their need for support from first world nations. However, this form of support usually comes with interests for the helper that then translates to a form of control by a foreign nation, which fits the definition of colonialism. Cheney highlights the possibility of a mutually benefiting relationship between developed countries and developing ones (77). Such a relationship should be based on engaging in activities that develop both nations without any form of one patronizing or exploiting the other. Ideally, such a model is applicable, but the reality of why nations interact makes it rather impossible to sustain such a relationship. For example, former colonisers usually offer military training for armies in their former colonies; this assists governments in developing countries to have a well-equipped and skilled security apparatus. However, such military assistance is often associated with former colonial powers establishing command centres in the region they are offering training. Such centres are used to collect intelligence on local government activities under the guise of gathering information on possible threats to global security. By definition, decolonisation represents an end to colonisation, but in reality, it was merely acceptance of failing governance policies by colonial masters. In Africa, colonialism was marked by an era of ‘divide and rule’ paradigms that focused on fostering one tribe as being superior to others. However, this approach became counterproductive when the perceived superior tribes started pushing for a direct role in their own governance. An attempt by colonial governments in countries such as Rwanda to quash such demands by promoting other tribes into positions of power only succeeded in creating civil tension. Additionally, the two World Wars had resulted in an economic weakening of most colonial powers, and thus the need for them to focus on rebuilding their own countries and not colonies. All these factors combined with the growth of a group of learned individuals from colonised communities, necessitated decolonisation. Therefore, colonisation did not end because colonisers were tired of being in power but because of other circumstances; consequently, decolonisation was not a product of the realisation of the need for each country to have its sovereignty. This realisation then invalidates the argument that colonialism ended with decolonisation, and instead creates a perspective that decolonisation transformed colonialism. Social systems, economic structures and governance approaches in most countries are founded on ideologies from their former colonial rulers. Prior to colonisation, a majority of these countries had traditional governments and social systems such as education, which could not be relevant or applicable in the current society. Therefore, the departure of colonialists did not signify a breakaway from the knowledge they had passed to locals in their colonies. Additionally, previous activities such as female circumcision have been proven by science as being harmful and ineffective in regards to their intended solutions. The debate, therefore, is whether such an adoption of colonial systems signifies an extension of colonisers’ authority. In some former colonies, the use of Western or European cultural norms is considered as retrogressing to the colonial period. Leaders that believe nationalism is a separation from all that is attributable to colonial masters fuel this perception. Such a perception and leadership philosophy, however, is a falsehood. During pre-colonial periods, interactions between local communities resulted in cultural exchanges: in Africa, some of these interactions involved war, whose attribute of violence is similar to that of colonialism. Nonetheless, the locals adopted foreign norms without ever perceiving such an exchange as making them subjects of another community; this is because these exchanges were based on an understanding that each culture needed to constantly evolve to remain beneficial to its people. Therefore, an assertion that adoption of colonial powers’ cultural practices is an extension of colonialism is wrong. One of the 21st century’s phenomena is globalization, which has increased interconnectivity between re...