The legacy of colonialism around the world is very complex and continues to impact modern society in many countries, particularly countries in Africa. The book, Citizen and Subject by Mahmood Mamdani, is one of many literary works that examine the relationship between colonialism and its impact on certain countries. Specifically, Mamdani focuses on South Africa as a relevant example of lasting colonial impact and uses the country to propose a unique theory regarding the impacts of colonialism. Although Mamdani uses South Africa as his main example, he applies his theory to the whole of Africa. This theory justifies the lack of democratization and development in Africa today as a direct consequence of colonial rule. It particularly analyzes different forms of colonial rule, such as indirect rule and direct rule, and discusses how they continue to affect African institutions and society. This analysis further highlights how modern African countries such as South Africa have failed to reform and replace these colonial styles of government that became institutionalized in their countries. Mamdani's theory stands out in this area of ​​research for the way in which it focuses on the institutional impacts of colonialism rather than solely the societal, economic, or cultural effects. The ideas explained in Citizen and Subject provide alternative reasoning for why so many African countries struggle to democratize and develop. Overall, Mamdani's book offers an interesting and unique perspective on the harmful and enduring legacy of colonialism in Africa. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In order to analyze Mamdani's theory, it is important to understand how he presents his ideas. The beginning of the book includes analysis of many different themes, but Mamdani devotes much of the introduction to discussing the lasting impacts of racism and colonial perspectives on African people. By referencing a speech by General Jan Smuts, former South African military leader and Prime Minister, Mamdani shows the audience how inferior the colonizers considered the African people. In his speech, General Smuts compares Africans to children, insinuating that they are mentally incompetent. Furthermore, General Smuts describes the African people as “bad” and “uncivilized.” By including these comments from General Smuts, Mamdani highlights the racism associated with colonial rule. Mamdani then states that “non-racial colonialism must be brought into the open” and addresses an entirely new angle on colonialism. At first, this radical shift from discussing racism to discussing institutions was confusing and seemed irrelevant to Mamdani's entire argument. However, this discussion of racism then relates to how racism has influenced different types of government. Mamdani states that the entirety of postcolonial reform has been deracialization. Referring to General Smuts, Mamdani quotes him as saying: "the political system of the natives was ruthlessly destroyed in order to incorporate them on an equal footing into the white system." This quote highlights two main themes: firstly, how racism has affected communities, and also how the process of deracization has led to structural changes within government and society. These changes allowed the colonizersto infiltrate and modify the institutions of African countries. Echoing Smuts, Mamdani cites: “its indigenous institutions were ruthlessly proscribed and destroyed” in reference to the manner in which colonizers attempted to force indigenous Africans into the colonial way of life and domination. Mamdani describes how colonial rulers, including Smuts, dismembered and replaced indigenous rules and institutions with their own versions. However, during this discussion, Mamdani is unclear how this quote relates to his overarching emphasis on decision-making styles. Many readers may not be able to infer that Mamdani is using these quotes to show how colonial rulers exercised direct rule. Colonial rulers attempted to assimilate indigenous Africans into the European way of life and the implementation of European laws in Africa are examples of direct rule. Unfortunately, readers are not provided with this clear description and connection between Smutz's quotes and direct colonial rule. Mamdani's writings are not focused on the point he is trying to make and often oscillate between themes of racism, governing styles, and theorists. Mamdani had the opportunity in this area to show a clear relationship between racism and governing styles; It is evident that the foundations of direct and indirect rule were built around discrimination, but Mamdani fails to clearly establish this connection. Later, Mamdani devotes much of his attention to civil society and how it relates to colonial influence in African institutions. Mamdani affirms that “civil society is an embryonic and marginal construction in Africa”, but does not develop this assertion. Mamdani suggests that civil society is a new and emerging construct in Africa that does not play the same role in African countries as in Western democracies. As equal rights for whites and blacks became a priority in South Africa, the implementation of laws to protect and enforce these rights was the first step towards equality in the country; civil protections such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press were necessary to allow equality to take hold. Most interesting about this discussion is how Mamdani demonstrates to readers that equal rights are not necessarily a positive thing for all Africans. According to Mamdani, "the principle of equal rights was applied in its crudest form and, while giving the natives a semblance of equality with the whites, which was not good for it, it destroyed the foundations of his African system which was his highest good. Mamdani connects his previous argument, about the institutional legacy of colonial rule, to the impact of civil society, or lack thereof, in South Africa. He continues to argue that colonization destroyed indigenous African institutions and replaced them with flawed institutions intended to provide the appearance of equality while allowing colonial rulers to control their indigenous subjects. Ultimately, this is an important element of the book as it focuses on how colonialism is closely linked to civil society in Africa and how it can affect the promotion of equality in many countries. many African countries today. Mamdani later becomes clearer about why he chose to include racism in his introduction; he suggests that the racist underpinnings of colonial rule led to the many consequences he discusses in his book. These racist underpinnings include the European belief thatAfricans were “uncivilized.” It is for this reason that Mamdani believes that Europeans found it necessary to shape African institutions and society in a more civilized “European mold”. Mamdani also discusses the effects of racism on indirect rule, where colonizers used rural tribal leaders and tribalism to rule and oppress the African people. This point was unfortunately a bit unclear, as Mamdani struggles to show readers how the use of indirect rule via tribalism relates to his overall argument. Mamdani potentially suggests that the destruction of indigenous institutions was the result of indirect rule, which altered traditional forms of government in favor of imported European ideas. However, Mamdani's message regarding tribalism and institutions is not as concrete as it should be. One of the main points of interest in Citizen and Subject is the idea of ​​territorial segregation and how it affects institutions. It is in this part of the book that Mamdani begins to focus on South Africa and the apartheid movement. Using previously established ideas about rule in tribal areas and direct rule in urban areas, Mamdani suggests that these styles of government led to a state separated into two parts. This idea was one of the first concrete points made by Mamdani in the book, when he showed how colonial styles of government led to a divided state between urban areas of South Africa which were often governed more directly and rural tribal areas that were ruled indirectly. Mamdani suggests that apartheid in South Africa is deeply rooted in this original divided state. This point was very important, but a deeper analysis of how these styles of government actually led to a separate state would have made it stronger. A common tendency in Mamdani's writings is that, although he builds the foundations of a strong argument, he struggles to fully explain and complete those arguments; Mamdani develops a few points, such as his idea about colonial governing styles separating the state into two parts, but he does not sufficiently elaborate on how this separation occurred or how it led to such a division. Mamdani certainly has some strong points, but he often lacks the ability to fully elucidate his arguments and instead goes off on other ideas or tangents. Returning to his analysis of the divided state, Mamdani also explains how territorial segregation was also linked to racial segregation. Mamdani explains how this segregation during the colonial period led to apartheid. What stands out most from this discussion is that Mamdani focuses almost exclusively on apartheid in South Africa, although he previously stated that he wanted to "establish that apartheid, which is generally considered unique to 'South Africa is in fact a generic form of apartheid'. Colonial state in Africa. Mamdani doesn't do a good job of establishing this point, especially since it was one of his main goals for the book. Mamdani assumes that apartheid was a common theme in many African states due to colonialism, but this general statement does not necessarily apply to all postcolonial African states, and it does little to explain the problems of his argument. Former colonies like Kenya did not experience apartheid and became champions of democracy in Africa. The Kenyan example is extremely damaging to Mamdanis' overall theory of colonialism and apartheid because it proves that apartheid is not necessarily a common consequence of colonialism.