British indirect rule in Uganda is still alive and well
The British colonial policy in Uganda was to maximize outcomes for the British people and her industries at minimum cost. Besides strategic interests related to the source of the Nile and Egypt, Britain colonized Uganda to obtain raw materials for her expanding industries, food for her growing population, a market for her surplus manufactured products and a home for her excess population.
After several years of agricultural experimentation with white farmers and informed debate between Entebbe and London colonial officials it was decided that Uganda should be left in the hands of Uganda peasants and loyal chiefs – traditional or appointed – supervised by a few British officials at the central, provincial, district and local levels to ensure that law and order was maintained, taxes were collected and public projects such as roads were constructed.
The cost of governing Uganda would be met from local resources to reduce pressure on the British treasury. Using Buganda as an example of indirect rule model, Chretien (2006) observed that “The kingdom of Buganda was a notable example of the colonial combination of economic calculation, missionary activity, and political strategizing. In this process, the African actors played as decisive a role as the European imperialists”.