If Africa had not been colonised would it have developed?
Africa’s future lies not in revisiting whether colonialism occurred, but in strengthening institutions that can deliver inclusive development. Sovereignty is essential, but without strong governance, it remains an empty shell.
Prof. Alex Bashasha. (File)
______________
OPINION
By Prof. Alex Bashasha
A fascinating saying goes: until the lion learns to write, every story glorifies the hunter. Few subjects in African history have generated as much scholarship, controversy, and political emotion as colonialism. Libraries are filled with books debating whether European rule modernised Africa or underdeveloped it, whether it built states or broke civilisations. Yet amid these familiar arguments lies a question that remains both provocative and surprisingly under-explored: What if Africa had never been colonised?
For generations, colonialism has often been portrayed as Africa’s unavoidable gateway to modernity. Railways, schools, hospitals, and bureaucracies are cited as evidence that Europe introduced civilisation to an otherwise stagnant continent. Yet such arguments overlook an uncomfortable truth: Africa already possessed civilisations, states, universities, commercial networks, and systems of governance that were evolving long before European conquest. Colonialism did not begin African history. It interrupted it.
One of colonialism’s greatest myths is that Africa lacked organised political systems before Europeans arrived. Historical evidence suggests the opposite. Across the continent stood sophisticated kingdoms and empires that exercised authority over millions of people.
In East Africa, Buganda maintained an elaborate administrative hierarchy under the Kabaka, while Bunyoro-Kitara combined military organisation with thriving iron-smelting industries. Toro, Ankole, and numerous decentralised societies developed institutions suited to their own political realities rather than European models. Even colonial observers recognised this sophistication. Winston Churchill, after visiting Uganda in 1907, famously declared: “The Kingdom of Uganda is a fairy tale… the Pearl of Africa.” His admiration for Buganda’s governance and Uganda’s natural wealth underscores that Africa’s brilliance was visible even to outsiders who otherwise championed imperial rule.
Long before colonial boundaries existed, extensive trade routes connected the Great Lakes to the Swahili Coast, the Nile Valley, the Congo Basin, and the wider Indian Ocean world. Ivory, bark cloth, iron tools, livestock, salt, and agricultural produce circulated through these commercial networks centuries before European occupation. Elsewhere, political sophistication reached equally remarkable heights. The Mali, Songhai, and Ghana empires dominated West African commerce.
Centuries before Oxford reached international prominence, Timbuktu had become one of the world’s greatest intellectual centres. Built around the Sankoré Madrasah, the University of Timbuktu flourished between the 14th and 16th centuries, attracting as many as 25,000 students and thousands of scholars from across Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, and beyond. Its curriculum extended far beyond theology. Students studied astronomy, medicine, mathematics, law, philosophy, literature, and commerce. Between 400,000 and 700,000 manuscripts documented scientific discoveries, legal debates, and philosophical inquiry that challenged the outdated stereotype of a continent without written scholarship.
Colonial education undoubtedly expanded literacy and introduced modern scientific disciplines. Yet it also marginalised indigenous languages, oral traditions, and African knowledge systems. Frantz Fanon argued that colonial domination extended beyond territory to the colonisation of consciousness itself. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o similarly observed that language became a powerful instrument through which colonial societies alienated Africans from their own intellectual traditions.
Across much of Africa, indigenous knowledge systems became secondary to imported frameworks. Local languages lost academic prestige. Traditional medicine, jurisprudence, philosophy, and ecological knowledge were dismissed despite generations of accumulated wisdom. Colonial education reinforced this mental subjugation by teaching Africans to see themselves as incapable of mastering advanced skills or leading industrial development.
Recognising colonialism’s destructive consequences does not require pretending that pre-colonial Africa was peaceful or free from domination. History records numerous examples of African states expanding through conquest. The Chwezi Empire shaped later kingdoms such as Bunyoro-Kitara. Mirambo, often described as the “Napoleon of Central Africa,” built a powerful state in present-day Tanzania by controlling strategic ivory and salt trade routes through his disciplined Ruga-Ruga army. Nyungu ya Mawe similarly created an expansive empire by replacing traditional chiefdoms with centrally appointed military governors.
Further south, King Mzilikazi transformed a small band of followers into the formidable Ndebele Kingdom after breaking away from Shaka Zulu. These examples reveal an important historical truth: conquest was not uniquely European. Like civilisations elsewhere, African societies experienced warfare, expansion, rivalry, and political competition.
If Africa possessed functioning political institutions, why did colonialism prove so transformative? The answer lies partly in the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885. Without consulting a single African representative, European powers partitioned nearly the entire continent into colonial territories. Ancient kingdoms, trading systems, and cultural communities were divided or merged according to imperial convenience rather than historical realities. Communities with shared identities suddenly found themselves separated by international borders, while long-standing rivals were compelled into artificial political unions. The consequences remain visible today. Colonialism did not merely redraw maps. It redirected Africa’s political evolution.
Liberia’s independence was undermined by the dominance of the Americo-Liberian elite, who marginalised indigenous groups and created deep internal divisions. Ethiopia, despite its symbolic victory at Adwa, endured feudal structures and authoritarianism well into the twentieth century. Both cases reveal that sovereignty without institutional strength can lead to stagnation or instability.
Comparatively, some colonised African states, despite the distortions of colonial rule, eventually developed stronger institutions after independence. Botswana, for example, managed to build relatively stable governance structures and achieve economic growth. This suggests that colonialism was not the sole determinant of Africa’s developmental trajectories. Instead, the decisive factor was how states managed governance, institutions, and resources after independence.
Uganda’s history reflects both the disruptions of colonialism and the resilience of indigenous governance traditions. The Buganda system remains a reminder that Africa had political sophistication long before colonial rule. Buganda’s governance mirrored Britain’s, with the Kabaka as king, the Katikiro as prime minister, the Rukiiko as parliament, and a Chief Justice overseeing law. This impressed Churchill, who saw it as evidence of Africa’s political sophistication.
The experiences of Liberia and Ethiopia reveal an important lesson: avoiding colonisation did not automatically result in stronger development outcomes. Independence was necessary but not sufficient. What mattered more were the quality of institutions, the inclusiveness of governance, and the ability to adapt to changing global and domestic circumstances.
The broader lesson is that Africa’s development cannot be explained solely by the presence or absence of colonialism. Buganda’s governance system shows that African states had indigenous capacity for political sophistication. Uganda’s protectorate status demonstrates how colonialism redirected trajectories. Liberia and Ethiopia illustrate that independence without strong institutions could lead to fragility.
Today, the developmental indicators of Liberia and Ethiopia are comparable to or even lower than some colonised African states. Liberia continues to grapple with the legacies of civil war and weak institutions, while Ethiopia faces challenges of authoritarianism, ethnic conflict, and poverty. Their experiences underscore that independence is only the starting point; the real determinant of progress lies in building inclusive, resilient, and adaptive institutions.
Africa’s future lies not in revisiting whether colonialism occurred, but in strengthening institutions that can deliver inclusive development. Sovereignty is essential, but without strong governance, it remains an empty shell.
The writer is the Director General TABKEN Consults on Development, Fellow and Associate Professor School of Business Management Geneva