« AnteriorContinuar »
tectorate, of obtaining industrial concessions, and of eventually bringing the region under its direct political control. The dominant idea, however, is the exclusion of the political activities of other powers and the consequent reservation by the privileged state of a free hand.” (Reinsch, "Colonial Government.”)
The sphere of influence is a transitory condition, as has been said. The next step may be to open the territory in the sphere of influence to trading companies chartered by the great state, and to gradual settlement; or it may be definitely to occupy the territory with military force, conquer it, and annex it; or it may be (and often is) the establishment of a protectorate.
Protectorate.-As the word implies, a protectorate is a territory which is under the protection of a powerful state. The protectorate is the result of treaty obligations supposed to have been in all cases voluntarily accepted by the peoples of the dependent territory. Under the provisions of a treaty of protectorate the protecting state is given the right to dictate all questions of relations with outside (foreign) powers, is guaranteed to be the only state with which the peoples or tribes of the protected territory shall have political relations, and is allowed to have a resident agent in the protected territory. In general, the local government is left undisturbed.
If a protectorate were merely what the name implies, it might be administered in a way that would be a decided advantage to the people in the protected territory, but the protectorate is commonly a transitional status leading to direct dependency. The protectorate is only a temporary expedient designed to disguise to the minds of the protected territory the ultimate object of the protecting state. Thus most of the African territories originally acquired by treaties of protection have already been converted by the land-hungry states into actual possessions, into direct dependencies.
Two Classes of Dependencies: Colonial and Direct.-For the purposes of our study of government, then, dependencies may be divided into two main classes, colonial dependencies
and direct dependencies. In colonial dependencies the colonies have been largely settled by citizens of the ruling state, or by people of a similar degree of political experience, and the population is mainly homogeneous with the population of the ruling state. In direct dependencies the territories have been brought into subjection by force or by treaty, either directly or through the gentler gradations of sphere of influence and protectorate, and the population is mainly of a different blood and race from that of the ruling state, is in fact often savage or semi-savage in character.
II. GOVERNMENT IN COLONIAL DEPENDENCIES Government in Colonial Dependencies.-Government in colonial dependencies of modern democratic states does not in modern times present great difficulties. Inasmuch as the people of the colonies are chiefly of the same race and familiar with the same institutions as the people of the governing state or are of a similar degree of political experience, modern liberalism has more and more tended to extend to the former the same general political privileges as are granted to the latter. Thus in states with liberal suffrage and representative government, we may expect to find the colonial dependencies likewise enjoying the privileges of liberal suffrage and representative government. Such colonial dependencies may not incorrectly be called self-governing colonies.
The three most prominent examples of such self-governing colonies are Canada, Australia, and South Africa, all three being members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The system of government provided for these colonial dominions closely resembles the English system in its main features. The chief executive is a governor or governorgeneral appointed by the English monarch and serving both as the direct representative of England and as the head of the colonial government. As the direct representative of England it is his function to prevent by the exercise of his veto power any measures inimical to the interests of the British Empire
as a whole. As the head of the colonial government, he is wholly in the hands of a ministry responsible to the popular chamber of the legislature.
The governor-general seldom finds it necessary to exercise his veto power. His position is such that he can, and usually does, wield an enormous influence upon political affairs. An experienced and tactful governor can by the force of his personality so direct the policies of the ministry that his veto power will not have to be used.
Each of the self-governing dominions has a legislative body, the members of which are elected by the people on a liberal suffrage. The ministry is appointed by the governor-general from the leaders of the majority party in the legislature. The ministry can be dismissed and the legislature dissolved by the governor-general, but new elections must at once take place for a new government.
The powers of the legislature are very nearly as great as those of an independent state. The ruling state makes no attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of the self-governing dominion; it has given over to the management of the dominion legislature the public lands of the territory; it even allows an astonishing amount of freedom in the tariff and trade relations which the dominion may make with foreign states, so that the world to-day beholds England with a free trade system and her self-governing dominions with a protective tariff system.
The seif-governing dominions are no longer bound to England by force, for any one of the three is large and powerful enough to carry through a successful revolt, but rather by ties of interest and national pride. Before England takes any measures liable to affect the interests of these dominions, the government consults the dominions themselves; and the dominions on their part tend to respect the interests of England and to adjust their legislation accordingly. What the future of these dominions will be as they continue to develop in wealth, strength, and importance cannot be foretold. Some persons dream of new states created by simple declarations of independence on the part of the various self-governing dominions; others dream of a new and marvelous imperial federation in the legislature of which England, Canada, Australia, and South Africa shall have equal or proportionate weight, while the English Parliament shall legislate only for matters in the British Isles.
III. GOVERNMENT IN DIRECT DEPENDENCIES
Government in Direct Dependencies.—To give an adequate conception of the variety of governmental forms by which the powers have endeavored to foster the mutual advantages of their own states and of their direct dependencies is a difficult problem. From the absolute monarchy type of the Belgian Congo, through the Dutch, English, and French varieties of direct control, the gradations are numerous. To any classification that may be made certain exceptions should be noted and certain objections may be urged.
Most Liberal Type: French Dependencies.—The general statement may be made that none of the direct dependencies of any state enjoys the degree of self-government that is enjoyed by the English colonial dependencies. The nearest approach to this is to be found in certain dependencies of France. In the early history of the acquisition of dependencies the French theory was that such dependencies should be conquered and assimilated to the civilization and laws of France as soon as possible; but in time statesmen saw the futility of trying to force French habits of thought, French tastes and customs, French laws and civilization, upon great masses of different races, some of which (as in Indo-China) had an ancient and complex civilization of their own. For the policy of conquest and assimilation, therefore, France deliberately substituted the more enlightened policy of “association," by which the ancient laws, customs, and civilization of each dependency are respected, a degree of local self-government is granted, and development of each dependency along its own characteristic lines is encouraged.
The legislative body of France has the ultimate power to fix the government and make the laws for each dependency. In this legislative body, however, the more important dependencies (as Algeria, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, French India, French Guiana, Senegal, and Cochin China) are represented by delegates elected by a wide suffrage in the dependencies and given equal rights with the delegates from French constituencies. The general supervision of affairs pertaining to the dependencies is vested in a minister of the colonies, assisted by a council composed of elected representatives of all the dependencies. The minister of the colonies and the council have supervision over such important matters as the fixing of tariffs and the approval of the separate budgets. In the dependencies the head of the government is a governor, who is both the representative of the home country and the chief executive of the dependency. Councils general, partly or wholly elected by the citizens, have in the more important dependencies a considerable degree of control over local affairs. In addition to the council general the governor has a small advisory privy council, partly appointed by him and partly elected. In none of the dependencies is the governor or his advisory privy council directly responsible to the more representative council general.
English Direct Dependencies.-The typical government of the direct dependencies of England is theoretically less liberal than that just outlined, in that such dependencies are not allowed the privilege of representation in the English Parliament; but in practice, under a number of great administrators the system has tended to give these dependencies all the powers they could wisely exercise. The laws are typically decrees issued by the governor or commissioner with the concurrence of a privy council. Both governor and privy council are appointed by the crown. Usually there is also a Legislative Council which acts in a purely advisory capacity, and whose