The British and the transfer of power in the Bechuanaland Protectorate: Neo-colonialism or passive revolution?

IF 1.1 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Kebapetse Lotshwao
{"title":"The British and the transfer of power in the Bechuanaland Protectorate: Neo-colonialism or passive revolution?","authors":"Kebapetse Lotshwao","doi":"10.1177/0309816821997118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Deploying the theoretical framework of Italian Marxist thinker, Antonio Gramsci, this article argues that rather than a neo-colonial arrangement, the transfer of power from the British to locals in the Bechuanaland Protectorate (Botswana) could be conceptualized as a passive revolution. This passive revolution, which was triggered by demands for independence by radical nationalists, entailed the formation of a pro-British political party, the Botswana Democratic Party, and transferring power to it in a carefully managed decolonization process. The passive revolution aimed not just at preserving British economic interests in the protectorate but also at state formation for purposes of expanding the capitalist mode of production in the newly independent state. Thus, the transfer of power took place concurrently with the creation of a legitimate capitalist state that served the interests of both the British and the cattle-owning Botswana Democratic Party elite that assumed power at independence. Post-independence, the cattle bourgeois class at the apex of the Botswana Democratic Party embarked upon the construction of hegemony through the creation of an interventionist developmental state that addressed the narrow interests of other classes and groups constituting the post-independence historical bloc. Such hegemony has allowed the Botswana Democratic Party to retain power to the present day.","PeriodicalId":46258,"journal":{"name":"Capital and Class","volume":"411 1","pages":"561 - 578"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Capital and Class","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816821997118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Deploying the theoretical framework of Italian Marxist thinker, Antonio Gramsci, this article argues that rather than a neo-colonial arrangement, the transfer of power from the British to locals in the Bechuanaland Protectorate (Botswana) could be conceptualized as a passive revolution. This passive revolution, which was triggered by demands for independence by radical nationalists, entailed the formation of a pro-British political party, the Botswana Democratic Party, and transferring power to it in a carefully managed decolonization process. The passive revolution aimed not just at preserving British economic interests in the protectorate but also at state formation for purposes of expanding the capitalist mode of production in the newly independent state. Thus, the transfer of power took place concurrently with the creation of a legitimate capitalist state that served the interests of both the British and the cattle-owning Botswana Democratic Party elite that assumed power at independence. Post-independence, the cattle bourgeois class at the apex of the Botswana Democratic Party embarked upon the construction of hegemony through the creation of an interventionist developmental state that addressed the narrow interests of other classes and groups constituting the post-independence historical bloc. Such hegemony has allowed the Botswana Democratic Party to retain power to the present day.
英国和贝川纳保护国的权力转移:新殖民主义还是被动革命?
运用意大利马克思主义思想家安东尼奥·葛兰西的理论框架,本文认为,在贝古纳兰保护国(博茨瓦纳),权力从英国人手中转移到当地人手中,可以被概念化为一场被动革命,而不是一种新殖民主义安排。这场被动的革命是由激进民族主义者要求独立引发的,导致了一个亲英国的政党——博茨瓦纳民主党的形成,并在一个精心管理的非殖民化进程中将权力移交给它。这场被动革命的目的不仅在于维护英国在这个保护国的经济利益,还在于建立国家,以便在这个新独立的国家扩大资本主义生产方式。因此,权力的转移与合法的资本主义国家的建立同时进行,这既符合英国人的利益,也符合在独立时掌权的博茨瓦纳民主党精英的利益。独立后,处于博茨瓦纳民主党顶峰的牛资产阶级通过建立一个干涉主义的发展型国家开始了霸权的建设,该国家解决了构成独立后历史集团的其他阶级和群体的狭隘利益。这种霸权使博茨瓦纳民主党得以保留权力直到今天。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Capital and Class
Capital and Class POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
11.80%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信