Botswana: Indirect rule and resistance (1932-1958)

Extracted from: "Botswana" IN Compendium of Elections in Southern Africa (2002), edited by Tom Lodge, Denis Kadima and David Pottie, EISA, 36-38.

It was over the attempted extension of a formal system of indirect rule that the first effective opposition to the British came. In the 1930s, the principles on which British rule was originally established were criticised by government officials. The initial intention was to maintain the position and power of the chiefs. However, there was no formal statement of their responsibilities and no attempt to harmonise their relationship with the government civil servants. From the early 1920s the British government was establishing more complex and formal structures of rule throughout the empire. Though the basic principle behind these changes was the use of be pre-colonial power structures, the reforms attempted to rid these structures of what civil servants saw as their more capricious elements. In Bechuanaland this meant an attempt to establish formal courts and councils that the chiefs had to consult. A proclamation to this effect was issued in 1932.

The plans caused an uproar among the chiefs, as there was a feeling that the new system would make them into mere government bureaucrats. The protests were led by the regent of the BaNgwato, Tshekedi Khama, who used sophisticated means to challenge the imperial government: He carefully analysed the British proposals, and went directly to London to argue that the proclamations were closer to the idea of South African rule, than British rule in the rest of Africa. After four years of argument, the government was eventually taken to court by Tshekedi and other chiefs. Despite losing the battle, Tshekedi showed that there could be effective organisation and lobbying against imperial rule.

The British system of indirect rule sought to use patriarchal traditional power structures, but at the same time undermined them. Furthermore, indirect rule hoped to get indigenous people more involved in 'native administration', while also extending British involvement. These contradictions were eventually to destroy the basis of British rule, and were highlighted by the BaNgwato crisis of the 1950s.

Before taking over as kgosi of the BaNgwato from the regency of his uncle Tshekedi, Seretse Khama studied law in Britain. While there, he met and married Ruth Williams, a white English woman. News of this infuriated Tshekedi, who had already planned a more political marital union, and was opposed to marrying outside the group. He was determined, therefore, to force a divorce. Seretse refused and was acclaimed as kgosi at a public meeting of the BaNgwato. Tshekedi ensured that the British did not recognise this appointment. The British claimed that they were trying to protect "the unity and well-being of the tribe". In reality, they were trying to avoid the anger of the South African government, which made threats to invade the Protectorate if the union between a white and a black person was recognised.

At this stage, it became clear that chiefs and the people of Bechuanaland lacked real autonomy. Seretse's forced exile in Britain sparked protests from his supporters, and led a group of young BaNgwato to organise and lobby against the actions of the British government. To them, the incident represented an opportunity to end the political system dominated by autocrats, and introduce more democratic arrangements. It also facililitated a change of focus in their concerns towards broader nationalist and anti-colonial ideas. The crisis ended in 1956, when both Seretse and Tshekedi renounced their claims to the status of kgosi. Seretse was then allowed to return to Bechuanaland as an ordinary subject.

The BaNgwato crisis allowed a new literate and articulate group that did not rely on traditional power structures to emerge. It also highlighted the fact that the British could no longer rely on these structures to control the Protectorate. The migrant labour system, the Second World War and indirect rule, all served to destabilise Bechuanaland society. Through the crisis it became obvious that a new form of government had to be found. This marked the beginning of constitutional negotiations.

As early as 1920, the Protectorate government had established a council on which Africans were to be represented - initially called the Native (and, after 1940, African) Advisory Council. The NAC was meant to be for the chiefs to express their views to the government, but it was powerless and met only once a year. The council did manage at times to put pressure on the government, but was never a threat to its authority .In 1950 a Joint Advisory Council (JAC) was established, made up of equal numbers of Africans; Europeans and government members. It was in the JAC that formal demands for constitutional negotiations were heard, and in 1958 a committee was established to draw up plans for a legislative council.

A compromise was reached whereby Europeans and Africans received an equal number of seats (ten each), with one seat for Asians, and the government was to nominate eleven members of its own. An African Council (AC) was also established, including the chiefs as well as some appointed and elected members. Africans could not elect representatives to the Legislative Council directly, but had to do it through the AC. Though this settlement was far from ideal for the majority of the population, once the idea of African representation in a national law-making body had been accepted, it was clear that LEGCO's days were numbered.