Indirect Colonial Rule Undermines Support for Democracy: Evidence From a Natural Experiment in Namibia

Abstract

This article identifies indirect and direct colonial rule as causal factors in shaping support for democracy by exploiting a within-country natural experiment in Namibia. Throughout the colonial era, northern Namibia was indirectly ruled through a system of appointed indigenous traditional elites whereas colonial authorities directly ruled southern Namibia. This variation originally stems from where the progressive extension of direct German control was stopped after a rinderpest epidemic in the 1890s, and, thus, constitutes plausibly exogenous within-country variation in the form of colonial rule. Using this spatial discontinuity, we find that individuals in indirectly ruled areas are less likely to support democracy and turnout at elections. We explore potential mechanisms and find suggestive evidence that the greater influence of traditional leaders in indirectly ruled areas has socialized individuals to accept nonelectoral bases of political authority.

Historical Legacies and African Development

“…While this study does not exploit some quasi-random variation on chief's competition, it is important as it shows with a phenomenal dataset that traces the chieftaincy for over a century the continuity of de facto political rule and the persistence of rural institutions. Lechler and McNamee (2018) look at Namibia, an interesting case because the North was ruled via local chiefs, while the German and South African administration ruled directly the Southern provinces.…”

“…Soon afterwards the colonial administration put a veterinary cordon fence and in 1907 it institutionalized a formal police boundary separating "white" and "black" West-South Africa. Lechler and McNamee (2018) compare political beliefs and participation using Afrobarometer Surveys on the two sides of the colonial border. The regression discontinuity estimates uncover sharp differences at the border; pro-democracy beliefs and electoral participation are considerably lower on the Northern side of the colonial border that was ruled indirectly via despotic chiefs.…”

Early Statehood and Support for Autocratic Rule in Africa

“…Other scholars contend that indirect rule, a practice typically associated with British colonialism, engendered distinctively antidemocratic tendencies. That is, pro-autocratic political ideologies were more likely to persist in areas where colonial magistrates delegated local authority to traditional leaders (Lechler & McNamee, 2018; Mamdani, 1996). Yet, it is unlikely that colonial-era norms took root in a uniform, easily predictable fashion: disparate factors impacted the rate and magnitude of transmission.…”

“…Second, our work speaks to extant scholarship on long-run norm transmission (Becker et al, 2016; Chaudhary & Shrivastava, 2018; De Juan, 2017; Nunn & Wantchekon, 2011; Pop-Eleches & Tucker, 2020; Schulz et al, 2019) by showing that similarly to pre-industrial political institutions (Becker et al, 2016; Chaudhary & Shrivastava, 2018) and disruptive historical events (Besley & Reynal-Querol, 2014; Nunn & Wantchekon, 2011; Schulz et al, 2019), the enculturation efforts of precolonial political elites can be an enduring source of prevailing norms. We build upon the work of Lechler and McNamee (2018) who show in the context of Namibia that greater influence of traditional leaders in indirectly ruled areas continues to socialize individuals to accept nondemocratic sources of authority. Specifically, we show that the empirical regularities these authors identified in a single case generalize to other African countries.…”

Explaining the Constitutional Integration and Resurgence of Traditional Political Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…During colonialism, these differences were fortified with the erection of the veterinary cordon fence (for a detailed historical account, cf. Lechler and McNamee, 2018). Still today, the northern traditional institutions are stronger and more hierarchically organized (cf.…”