The Problems of East Africa
OF all the inquiries into the problems of East Africa that which has been conducted by Sir Edward Hilton Young's Commission has been awaited with the greatest anxiety. Neither . the Commission . led by Mr. Ormsby Gore nor the conferences of the Governors and settlers of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika seemed to provide Mr. Amery with exactly the information he needed. It has been rumoured for a long time that he would like to see Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika, and possibly also Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, drawn together into some sort of union. The Report of the Hilton Young Commission, which has just been pub- lished, and which is worthy of all respect for its thought- fulness and earnestness, will at least be a basis for dis- cussion on the right lines. Sir Edward and his colleagues approached the difficulties with fresh minds. Only Mr. J. H. Oldham, who has long been connected in a lay capacity with missionary work, can be said to have studied the conditions at first hand. Sir George Schuster acquired his experience of native problems in the Sudan, and Sir Reginald Mant in India.
Before we come to the Report itself let us take a bird's eye view of East ,Africa. The predestined principals of a closer union are, of course, Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. These are classed as the northern terri- tories of East Africa, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia being the central territories. It is generally believed that white opinion in Northern Rhodesia leans to co-or- dination with Southern Rhodesia rather than with the northern territories.- The native question, which domi- nates all studies of East Africa, is found in its most acute form in Kenya. In Uganda there is little trouble. But every tried method of dealing with the natives in Kenya. has been exposed to disapproving and often bitter criti-• cism in Great Britain by politicians who, by some enviable means, have been able to simplify for themselves all the difficulties. The method of the Governor of Tanganyika has been. as far as possible to control the natives through their chiefs, but in Kenya, where such tribal leadership is generally lacking, the Administration has taken the place of the chiefs.
There can be no doubt that the white settlers in Kenya were encouraged during the .first flush of political organi- zation to assume that within a measurable time Kenya- would become a " self-governing " colony—would, that is to say, be governed by the settlers, with the further prospect of becoming part of a great East African autonomous Dominion. The extraordinary amount of criticism' focussed on Kenya (for surely she is -the most criticized' colony in the British Empire) called attention to the fact that, although the colonists seemed to be proceeding confidently to self-government, they formed but a handful of the population. The last Census showed that the settlers were rather fewer than 10;000, and that there was an Indian population of 23,000, an Arab population of 10,000, and a native population of 2,500,000. Ought the comparatively few settlers" to be entrusted—even though they might be angels Of light— with the control of such a mixed population ? The Imperial Government thought that they should not, and in 1928, when the Duke of Devonshire was Colonial Secretary, they made the following declaration of principle "Primarily, Kenya- is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to reoord their considered' opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if, and when, those interests and the interests eV the immigrant races should conflict, the former should.
In the; dministration of Kenya His Majesty's Government regard themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African population, and they are unable to delegate or share this trust, the object of which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the native races . . . This paramount duty, of trusteeship will continue, as in the past, to be carried out under the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the agenti of the Imperial Government, and by them alone."
The task of Sir Edward Hilton-Young and his colleagues was to suggest means of closer contact in East Africa without doing injury to that principle. They propose that there should be a Governor-General of Kenya; Uganda and Tanganyika who would have considerable executive powers, particularly in regard to the natives, and who would be helped by a small Advisory Council. The Colonial' Secretary in London would be helped by, a similar Council. The idea, evidently, is that local opinion and policy should be sifted and concentrated before it is presented to London for approval. The Commission, however, think that the time is not yet ripe for the appointment of the Governor-General. He would be preceded by a High Commissioner, who would make the way plain by inaugurating discussions of native policy, co-ordinating services which are common to Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, and introducing Constitutional changes in Kenya.
The most important split among the members of the Commission was upon the future Constitution of Kenya. It must be noted that all the members placed the interests of the natives first. The difficulty was to suggest a Constitution which would guarantee the welfare of the natives and yet be fair to the settlers: When we speak of " fairness " to the settlers we are by no means asking that the settlers should receive conces- sions at the expense of the natives. That is not the point at all. The future of a Colony necessarily depends upon the abilities, the sincerity and the capacity for public service of its natural leaders—those endowed with the highest brain power. It seems to us that if the future of Kenya is not determined by Western civilization in its highest sense—we mean a Western ' ethos, not necessarily all Western political forms--there will be a descent to demoralization. The interests of the natives must always be best served by the compliance and' contentment of the settlers. Although we agree that the settlers under misguided encouragement made too' much haste, and also' (no doubt for the same reason) made mistakes, we are not among those who think that a British Government can safely deprive the settlers- for ever of all hope of an increase Of power, and yet' expect that the native question will be solved happily, for the' natives 'themselves.
We are satisfied that successive Governors of Kenya have encouraged the settlers to devote themselves to public work and to look for a gradual accretion d power, hot because they wanted to find a way 'round the Colonial Office declaration of 1928, but because they wanted the settlers to accustom themselves to respon2 sibility. The much criticized compulsory military train-, ing, which amounts to not much more than an O.T.C.' training in this country, was intended more as a means of discipline than anything die.
Nevertheless, we admit frankly that so far as , is possible to see ahead there can be no prospect of anything; but Crown Colony Government for Kenya Colony, The' disproportion of the whites to the other elements of the population, and the wide_ disparities of education, make any other solution out of the question till_ the conditions have. greatly changed. ., On the other hand, we cannot think it right, as a matter of principle, that it should be laid down that the settlers in Kenya can never become a self-governing community like the South -African Union. Even if we thought that all the criticisms of Kenya have been justified' we should still object to what may be .called a policy of the dead hand—to a policy of one generation laying down immutable rules for some distant generation of which the circumstances are entirely unknown. Sir Edward Hilton Young himself objects to any such finality. -His colleagues, in effect, disagree with him.. We write "in effect" because it may be said that they do not refuse to consider the possibility of. East Africa becoming a Dominion when the natives are .fit to play .their part in government on equal -terms with the settlers. This, however, is rather like the old legal circumlocution which provided that something could . be done when a man could ride to Rome -in one day. The circumlocution meant "never." Such an over- hanging prohibition might play havoc with the scheme of impressing upon the handful of settlers, even in these early clays, . the tremendous weight of responsibility that rests upon them. East Africa, and in particular Kenya, will be utterly condemned if the native policy of the future is not generous as well_ as just ; but we could not ourselves hope for such a happy conclusion unless we felt that the settlers were working for it with complete good will. . • .
Sir Edward's colleagues would substitute four unofficial members—nominated to represent the natives--for four official members in the Legislative Council. of Kenya, and would thus abolish the official majority. Sir Edward himself says that this. would make no difference, as the official, members could always maintain a majority by enlisting the help-of one of the racial groups. He suggests that the official members should be reduced from a half to a quarter of the whole, and that the nominated members should be increased. There would still be room for eleven elected settlers, five Indians and one Arab.. _ • . . • .
The Indian claim to a common franchise, in place of the.. present communal franchise, raises difficulties, some of which do not seem to have been considered by those who are merely concerned with the scheme, admir- able in itself, of giving. satisfaction • to the Indians. When the Indians were excluded from the settlers' franchise in 1919 the exclusion was due not to any racial - prejudice lint -to a desire to guarantee the existence of British institutions and British standards of efficiency. To put it bluntly, the settlers feared- that a common roll on an equal franchise would enable men of another race to overwhelm British methods. The danger to the natives themselves might be concealed, but would neverthe- less be real. Suppose that a considerable number of voters of the different races, who were able to reach a certain intellectual standard, were added to the register, the settlers would find themselves faced at the very least by a powerful Opposition in which the tendency would be for the Indians, Arabs and natives to vote against the settlers. What would happen then to the conception of British trusteeship for the natives which is being fostered in Kenya in spite of many matters for regret in the past ? The very -fact that an arrangement is suggested by which the Indians would be able to tilt the balance in the composition of a majority (as the Irish Party used to tilt it formerly in the House of Commons) suggests that the interests of the natives might become a pawn in a game of chess instead of a solemn obligation. The Report, however, does not definitely commit itself on this subject of Indian representation.
We have not attempted any final judgment- on this very interesting Report. Our aim has been rather to show that a tendency among liberal-minded thinkers here to assume that every act which strengthens the hands of the settlers is necessarily harmful to the natives, may not-be true. On the contrary it may be dangerously false. Still, the whole temper of the Report, in its extreme care for the natives, is much to our liking. The more it is read and discussed the better. We hope that political organizations will invite Sir Edward Grigg, the Governor of Kenya, to explain to them the affairs of Kenya and to answer criticisms. The Government also would be well advised, when the affairs of East Africa are discussed, to make it plain to the world that any political concentration in East Africa will be directed impartially by experience of the essential principles of successful governance, and not by any desire of merely obliterating certain German hopes. 'The spirit for all East Africa, as the Report rightly implies, must be the spirit of a Mandate.
Previous page
