Land law and policy in Tanganyika 1919 – 1932
Loading...
Date
1973
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Dar es Salaam
Abstract
A. General
Little has been written on the historical development of land law and policy in Tanganyika during the colonial period. What follows is an attempt to remedy that deficiency, at least for the period from the imposition of British colonial rule toward the end of the First World War, to the departure of the second colonial governor, Sir Donald Cameron, in 1932.
Some shortcomings have to be mentioned at the outset. The period chosen is arbitrary. Historical development is a continuous process and no date chosen can represent a totally new departure. Nevertheless, the bulk of the material on the subject required some limitation of time and we believe that the period chosen is sufficient is bring out the basic contradictions of the land policy and the characteristics of the land law.
There is one apparent shortcoming we will disclaim at the outset. It might seem that there is more in the study of administrative policy than of law. This is due, partially, we admit, to the methodology adopted, and for which we make on apology, which is to examine the law against its social, that is to say, class background, in order to understand the law itself. But the bias is also inherent in the material and is broadly the thesis of the work. The fact is that the British administration, at times unconsciously, at other times consciously, shied away from giving legal expression to the policy adopted, this is particularly true in the area of African rights, where in spite of pledges and an attempt at a matter of administrative expediency, not of law, also in the case of the European settlers, the government retained wide powers in relation to land, and the settler form property – the right to occupancy – bore little relation to the developed form of individual ownership that had emerged in England by the nineteenth century. The reasons for this cannot be found in the law, or indeed in the conscious statements of the administrators. It must be found by examining the material basis of society in colonial Tanganyika, that is to say the class relations in that sphere of law, which is both ideology and state power. The methodology is therefore to examine this basis and then to relate it to the fundamental characteristics of the law, which will be done in this introduction, and then, in the body of the work, to bring out evidence to support the theses. We will first examine, then, the class relations in colonial Tanganyika and the relation of those classes to the state.
B. CLASSES IN COLONIAL TANGANYIKA
1. The metropolitan bourgeoisie and the state
The colonial state in Tanganyika was essentially an extension of the metropolitan state in Britain, and was likewise an instrument of the same class, the metropolitan bourgeoisie, who constituted the British ruling class. The functionaries who operated the state machine, and who made the law, in Tanganyika, were appointed mainly from London. The Governor was a member of the British Civil Service, was appointed, and could be removed, by the British sovereign (in effect by the secretary of state for the colonies) and local legislation could be vetoed by Westminster; there was also ultimate control over the army and the police, and on executive matters the Governor consulted, and often acted on the advices of, the metropolitan government.
These officials had no private property of their own to defend in Tanganyika. Their “property”, of which they were oustodians for the rest of their class, was the relationship of exploitation between the metropolitan bourgeoisie and the African workers – both rural proletariat and peasants. The Asian commercial class and the European settlers were intermediaries whom the government would support in so far as they were useful and effective in that function. The only exceptions to this pattern were the estates – mostly sisal and tea- owned by British companies.
2. Settlers
These were a class of capitalist farmers engaging in plantation agriculture, producing coffee, sisal, tea and other products and also engaged in cattle ranching in the south west Highlands. Their livelihood depended upon a plentiful supply of cheap African wage-labour- a commodity often difficult to obtain, which was one of the reasons why few of them were successful. They were weak economically; many of them failed in the Southern Highlands and in the North East they had to complete with an already advanced class of African coffee growers.
They were also few in numbers. Cameron remarked, to the joint select committee on closer union that a “mass meeting” of settlers meat anything from six to twelve people sitting round a bar in Moshi. He was exaggerating, but there was an element of truth in it. According to the 1931 Non-native census, the number of Europeans engaged in agriculture in the country was only 1,129 out of a total European population of 8, 228, and this figure hardly varied until independence, showing only a slight net increase in the period. Less than 50% of the settlers were British, which further contributed to their political weakness. Many were British Indian. Indians bought just under half the acreage bought by British European settlers in the sales of many properties after the First World War and held 17% of the total acreage of alienated land in 1930. The British Europeans held 39%.
Most of the indications are that the settlers were a separate class from the metropolitan bourgeoisie. Their property and their capital was mostly in Tanganyika, not in Britain. Time and again one reads of a settler complaining that he has “sunk his fortunes” in the country “put his life savings” into his farm, and so on. Their capital was small, but it was local. The fact that they were a separate class from the metropolitan bourgeoisie leads us on to the second point to stress: they were not a ruling class, nor were they a part of it. This was due to the origin of British rule in.
1. Report on the Non-native Census taken in the Territory on the right of 26th April1931. Table xxvi p.44. Other reports on later censuses, similarly entitled, show the following figures for Europeans in Agriculture: 1948; 1,138: 1952 (“farmers, fishermen and hunters”); 1,291: 1957 (“Agriculture forestry and fishing”); 1,563.
2. See fig.1 on p. 81.
3. Leubuscher: Tanganyika Territory – a study of Economic policy under the Mandate. (1944) Table A2. P. 203.
Description
Available in print form, East Africana Collection, Dr. Wilbert Chagula Library, Class mark (THS EAF HD1169.L9)
Keywords
Land tenure, Law, Tanzania
Citation
Lyall, A.B. (1973) Land law and policy in Tanganyika 1919 – 1932, Master dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam