Colonial deceit: How France manipulated the idea of freedom

By Tural Heybatov

In her report titled "The Evolution of French Colonialism: A Political and Constitutional Analysis," international governance expert Carlyle Corbin takes a deep dive into the concept of French "colonial constitutionalism." The First French Republic (1792-1804) is often seen as a symbol of revolutionary change, aimed at overthrowing tyranny and the old order. But behind this heroic image lies a darker truth: a history of colonialism, hypocrisy, and contradictions. While France proudly proclaimed the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, it continued to uphold colonial oppression and even reinstated slavery—revealing just how deeply rooted the thirst for power and domination was in its political culture.

Hypocrisy in the name of progress

The French Constitution of 1791, celebrated by many as a progressive document of its time, actually laid the groundwork for a double standard. Revolutionary leaders passionately promoted republican values, yet they deliberately excluded the colonies—territories that fueled France's prosperity through exploitation and slavery—from the Constitution. This move made it clear that the ideals of freedom and equality were meant only for the select few in the mainland, not for the subjugated colonial peoples.

The Constitution of 1793 didn't even mention the colonies. This wasn't an accident; it was a conscious choice that highlighted the hypocrisy of the republican government. While some in France fought for freedom and human rights, others turned a blind eye to the harsh reality of slavery and exploitation in the colonies. The slogans of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" echoed loudly in Paris but meant nothing to the millions in the colonies who were left out of the new republic's legal framework.

The Constitution of 1795 handed over control of the colonies to the Directory, offering a glimmer of hope for change. But in reality, it only strengthened the mainland's grip on the colonies. The agents appointed by the Directory were more like overseers than reformers. While France was freeing itself from monarchy, it continued to act like a typical colonizer in the colonies: controlling, suppressing, and exploiting. The mainland had no intention of giving the colonies any real chance at autonomy or self-determination.

Napoleon's code and the shameful return of slavery

Napoleon Bonaparte took a particularly cynical step in 1804 by reinstating slavery in the French colonies. This move starkly showed that for France, economic interests and the desire for power always outweighed moral principles. The Napoleonic Code extended French laws to all colonial territories, but these laws reinforced slavery and denied millions even the pretense of freedom. What a farce for a republic, born out of a fight for human rights, to restore one of the most brutal forms of oppression!

Colonial policy: Republican oppression rebranded

French colonial policy during the First Republic is a prime example of how republican values were twisted to justify oppression and exploitation. While France fought for its freedom from monarchical rule, it kept its colonies in a state of dependence and humiliation. This hypocrisy undermined the very essence of republican ideals and cast doubt on France's moral authority to claim the mantle of a champion of human rights.

The farce of emancipation

After World War II, France tried to clean up its image by passing the Lamine Gueye Law of 1946, which formally granted French citizenship to the people in the colonies. But this citizenship came with strings attached—it wasn't equal. Article 80 of the 1946 Constitution included provisions from this law, but it created a two-tier system of citizenship, where residents of France and the overseas departments received full civil rights, while others got only conditional rights.

This illusion of equality was further propped up by the Preamble to the Constitution, which boldly claimed that France sought to avoid all forms of colonization. But in practice, by creating the French Union, the republic simply rebranded its colonies, keeping control and dominance intact under the guise of equality. The new terminology didn't change the reality—French colonies remained dependent on the mainland, and real freedom for these peoples was nowhere in sight.

The French Union: A new form of colonial oppression

One of the key actions of the Fourth Republic was Law No. 46-451 of March 29, 1946, which officially annexed the colonies of Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, and French Guiana, turning them into overseas departments. This was the first step in a formal annexation, thinly veiled with promises of extending French laws and rights to these territories. But this "departmentalization" was just legal smoke and mirrors, cementing the mainland's control over these regions. France continued to govern them for its own interests, paying little attention to the needs and rights of the local people.

The 1946 Constitution created the French Union, which included overseas departments, territories, and associated states. Despite grand declarations of equality, this structure only reinforced French dominance over its colonies. France continued to act like an empire, holding onto control over the political and economic life of these regions. Even the newly created political institutions, like the Territorial Assemblies, had limited power and were controlled by French governors appointed by the mainland.

Pseudo-Reforms and entrenched inequality

In 1956, France passed the loi-cadre, which aimed to decentralize the French Union and give some powers to local authorities. But, as before, these reforms were mostly for show. Political and economic power remained firmly in the hands of the French administration, and local governments had little real influence over the management of their territories. This continued the long tradition of French policy—offering the appearance of autonomy without any real shift in power.

Caribbean and French departmentalization: Cultural genocide

The departmentalization of Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana, carried out by France in 1946, had a profound impact on the Caribbean region. This unilateral move coincided with the decline of the agricultural sector in these colonies, leading to a shift towards a service economy dependent on France. This process triggered mass unemployment and forced many locals to migrate to the mainland in search of a better life.

Aimé Césaire, one of Martinique's leading cultural figures, described this process as "genocide by substitution," highlighting how departmentalization led to the loss of cultural identity and uniqueness. His contemporary, Martinican writer Édouard Glissant, went even further, calling it "cultural genocide," pointing out the systematic destruction of local culture and the imposition of French norms and values.

Initially, many saw departmentalization as a way to eliminate existing inequalities and achieve economic and social development. Césaire supported this idea, viewing departmentalization as a path to equality and autonomy. But the reality turned out differently: as Hintjens notes, the governance of the overseas departments continued to depend on decisions made in Paris, and the local population faced new forms of inequality and dependence.

In Guadeloupe, as in Martinique, departmentalization was met with hopes for economic development. But these hopes were soon dashed, leading to widespread disappointment. Political integration ultimately cemented these regions' dependence on France, worsening socio-economic problems rather than solving them.

French colonial policy ignored the existence of pre-colonial societies, like the Kalinago civilization in Guadeloupe and Martinique. The historical heritage of these peoples was overlooked and erased by the French version of history, which denied any achievements and connections that existed before colonization. This policy undermined the cultural identity of the local peoples and pushed them toward assimilation into French culture, stripping them of their right to their own historical heritage and self-determination.

Reevaluating departmentalization: A look to the future

By the mid-1950s, the idea of self-determination began to gain traction, even in France's dependent territories. Against this backdrop, Césaire changed his stance, shifting towards support for internal self-government within an autonomous status. These changes laid the groundwork for further struggles for decolonization, culminating in the UN Declaration on Decolonization in 1960. This document marked the start of a new chapter in the fight for the rights of dependent peoples, though France continued to resist any real change in its relationships with its overseas territories.

France used legal and political maneuvers to keep its influence and control over the colonies. Behind the slogans of freedom and equality was a system of inequality and exploitation that, despite changes in terminology and formalities, remained unchanged. France couldn't shake off its colonial dependency, and instead of addressing decolonization honestly and fairly, it continued to strengthen its empire under the guise of republican values. This period stands as a stark example of the hypocrisy and double standards at the core of French colonial policy.

French departmentalization in the Caribbean, despite all the promises of equality and development, led to social and cultural crises. Economic dependence on France, loss of cultural identity, and disregard for historical heritage were all inevitable consequences of a policy aimed at strengthening French dominance under the guise of republican values. This period is a clear example of how France, hiding behind the rhetoric of equality, continued to govern its colonies without granting them real freedom and autonomy.

News.Az