Half a century separated the formal independence of Africa in 1910 and the formal independence of Nigeria in 1960. The two countries have since become the giants of Africa. Nigeria excels in human resources. It has the largest population in Africa.

South Africa excels in mineral and material resources. But what other factors distinguish the most influential African countries?

In the 20th Century, Africa had two types of European colonies: those with large numbers of white settlers and had evolved a racial hierarchy, and those that were overwhelmingly indigenous. Their white populations consisted mainly of colonial administrators and temporary residents.

The most important white-settler model was, of course, South Africa. On the eve of World War II, South Africa had become the largest concentration of white people on the African continent. Extensive white settlement in an African country was good news for the economic infrastructure, but bad news for race relations. South Africa evolved into the most industrialized nation in Africa. But it also became the worst case of racism and apartheid.

In contrast, the most important African country without a large European population was Nigeria. The absence of European enterprise and developmental skills deprived Nigeria of a more modern economic base and infrastructure. However, it also spared Nigeria the agony of racism and subsequent racial conflict.

The political formulation that most shaped Nigeria was Lord Lugard’s policy of indirect rule, seeking to de-centralise power to local chiefs and ‘native authorities’.

The political policy that moulded South Africa most fundamentally was apartheid, seeking to segregate the races socially and territorially. What did Indirect Rule have in common with apartheid in the second half of the 20th century?

At least in theory, the policy of indirect rule in colonial Nigeria and apartheid in South Africa were based on a belief that Africans could best be ruled through their indigenous institutions.

In Nigeria, indirect rule resulted in preserving the ‘native’ political institutions of Northern Nigeria. In South Africa, apartheid resulted in creating Bantustans with separate ‘native’ authorities.

Both indirect rule and apartheid were based on a profound distrust of potential ‘westernisation’ of Africa. The doctrines aspired to protect the cultural authenticity of Africa.

But on this issue, colonial Lord Lugard was more sincere than South Africa’s Prime Minister, Hendrick Verwoerd. Lord Lugard’s indirect rule was genuinely based on the British cultural tradition of political gradualism. Ostensibly, the apartheid ideology also valued cultural continuity and regarded westernisation as a potentially disruptive force among Africans.

Lord Lugard never used the term ’separate development’ in relation to Nigeria, but his policies did de facto result in Northern Nigeria’s development in a different way from Southern.

On the other hand, Hendrick Verwoerd and his successors never used the term Indirect Rule relative to white control, or the relationship between the central government in Pretoria and the Bantustans.

But in reality, that relationship was indeed a form of indirect rule.

Consequently, Lord Lugard’s motives differed from those of the architects of apartheid. The designers of apartheid started from a point of disrespect for Black people while Lord Lugard respected the kings and princes of Nigeria within the confines of an imperial order.

The architects of apartheid began with segregation at the micro-level, micro-apartheid. But the ideology ventured into macro-apartheid by attempting territorial creation of racial homelands.

In contrast, Lord Lugard believed in amalgamation instead of territorial fragmentation. As Governor-General of colonial Nigeria, he united Southern Nigeria with Northern Nigeria in 1914, thereby creating the most populous country in Africa. He believed in relative cultural autonomy for the different ethnic groups of Nigeria rather than territorial compartmentalisation.

South Africa has had two stages of sovereign independence: independence for whites in 1910 and independence for all South Africans in 1994. Some of the worst conflicts in South Africa occurred before the attainment of full independence. They ranged from the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 to the anti-apartheid struggle from the 1960s.

If South Africa’s worst conflicts were before attainment of full independence, Nigeria’s worst conflicts were after the end of colonial rule.

This included the bitter civil war of 1967 to 1970, the anti-Igbo pogrom of 1966 that triggered the civil war, and the communal and religious conflicts that have taken such a heavy toll over the years.

There were conflicts in colonial Nigeria from time to time while the British were in power, but nothing compared with the carnage of the post-colonial civil war and its aftermath.

Another contrast between Nigeria and South Africa concerns the role of the military in politics. Apartheid South Africa had been in wars to defend apartheid, but had never experienced a military coup domestically. Even today, it is arguable that South Africa may be conflict-prone, but not coup-prone.

Post-colonial Nigeria, has been both conflict-prone and coup-prone. In South Africa, the soldiers have been engaged in various clashes over the years, but the decisions to go to war were invariably made by civilians. In Nigeria, there have been both civilian-driven conflicts and military-sponsored conflagrations.

Moreover, Nigeria has experienced more post-colonial years under military rule than under civilian. Conversely, South Africa, since 1910 has not experienced any military take-over, though Prime Ministers like Paul Kruger and Jan Smuts were initially soldiers before they became politicians and statesmen much like President Eisenhower of the United States.

Article Source: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard