AF files, lot 58 D 549, “Memoranda 1953”
Memorandum Prepared by the Officer in Charge of West, Central, and East Africa Affairs ( Feld )1
Views of Mr. C. L. Sulzberger of the New York Times Regarding “Democracy” and “Christianity” in Africa South of the Sahara
In his letter of February 24, 1953 to the Secretary Mr. Sulzberger raises a question concerning the logical soundness of the policy of assuming “that democracy, more or less as we know it, is the best initial form of government for the various African peoples as they gain their freedom”. He then asserts that “their long—if unwritten—traditional history has no experience of this” and also that “the traditions of practically all the native peoples south of the Sahara desert have always been founded upon a system based upon the authority of a local chief (sometimes hereditary and sometimes elected) and a council of elders; in other words, a type of semi-authoritarian government…”
This is a subject which has engaged the attention of many authorities on African affairs, and it might be well to refer to their views in this regard since the whole subject is highly debatable. For instance, in his recent work “Native Administration in the British African Territories (4 volumes, HM Stationery Office, London, 1951) Lord Hailey, the distinguished British authority, took a contrary view to that advanced by Mr. Sulzberger when he stated, inter alia:
“African sentiment attaches special importance to the due observance of the procedure by which all members of the community concerned are able to have some voice in determining issues which are of major interest to it. It is rare to find in British Colonial Africa any instance in which the indigenous form of rule previously in force could be described in a strict sense as authoritarian. It was a prevailing characteristic of the indigenous system of rule that whether power was vested in the hands of individual Chiefs or of a ruling class, these had [Page 39] (unlike the absolutist regimes of a certain stage in European history) no machinery by the use of which they could enforce obedience to their orders. They may in many cases have been able to rely on the support of religious sanctions, but in the last resort the real sanction lay in their ability to secure the acquiescence of their traditional advisers and ultimately of the community itself.” (p. 2, Part IV)
With regard to replacement of traditional African institutions of government by more modern forms, Lord Hailey has this to say:
“All observers are agreed that modifications in the form of indigenous political institutions, if they do not offend any deep seated sentiment based on the past history or the religion of the community, are readily accepted for practical purposes, even though they may not secure the same instinctive respect as custom with a long history behind it. Innovation is therefore always feasible so long as it can command general assent. Though native Africa is by instinct conservative, its respect is shown far more in its respect for the customary law regulating matrimonial relations or the holding of land than in the value it attaches to the preservation of institutions of a political or administrative character.” (ibid., p. 10)
Although students of African affairs may differ wth this interpretation in certain respects, it is probably the general consensus that the question raised by Mr. Sulzberger may be somewhat more apparent than real. In any case, the British and French, who govern the bulk of the population of Africa south of the Sahara, in their respective and different ways, have adopted the policy of building up a system of government beginning at the local level, in order to prepare the mass of the people for eventual full participation in government at all levels. It would appear that this decision is based on their experience after thorough consideration of alternative systems of government for dependent peoples in an evolving status.
With regard to the question of the confusion caused in the African mind by the differences and contradictions within Christianity which are exhibited in doctrinal conflicts and varying attitudes towards racial questions, it is generally recognized that this is one of the most disturbing aspects of the western impact on Africa. It was, in a sense, the theme of the Conference on African Affairs held in June 1952 at Wittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio, under the auspices of the Africa Committee of the Division of Foreign Missions, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Almost all Christian organizations working in Africa are acutely aware of these contradictions which are so intimately bound up with doctrinal differences in the West itself. Progress in this field seems very slow and it would probably be somewhat optimistic to expect drastic changes in outlook in Africa until there is more unanimity in the Western Countries.
-
The source text is included as an annex to the following memorandum from Assistant Secretary Byroade to Secretary Dulles, dated Mar. 11, 1953 and drafted by Feld:
“NEA is very glad to have Mr. Sulzberger’s views on ‘democracy’ and ‘Christianity’ in Africa south of the Sahara, as set forth in his letter to the Secretary, dated February 24, 1953. It is also the feeling of NEA that the series of articles which he wrote for the New York Times during the course of his recent two-months’ trip to Africa were generally excellent and of the greatest value in acquainting the American public with the problems and future prospects of this increasingly important area of the world.
“There is attached an annex which discusses Mr. Sulzberger’s points in greater detail.”
A copy of Sulzberger’s letter has not been found in Department of State files. For an account of his travels in Africa, see C. L. Sulzberger, A Long Bow of Candles: Memoirs and Diaries [1934–1954] (Toronto, The Macmillan Company, 1969), pp. 807 ff.
↩