Help.: Modes of british imperial governance

hey guys, I have been researching and reading a lot of articles about the British imperial rule and I need help on this question:c


_ Did modes of imperial governance change over time? Was british governance, for example, different from British colonialism in different locations? HOW would you account for these changes ??

From what i understand, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were under "responsible government". India and other African colonies had indirect and direct rules. but still, I CANNOT answer this question. This is so hard. Can anyone please help me. I am very desperate.

Thank you very much. I need a full detailed answer. Please help me guys.
 
I am struck in explaining why the Brits have responsible government in Canada, South Africa, New Zealnd and not the others.
ALso, the change from direct rule to indirect rule in India and South Africa as well.


I will do more research on what you just mentioned. Thank you very much
 
Canada, New Zealand, etc. were independent countries - they hold the same status today that had back then, as no formal 'declaration of indepence' has ever been created. I don't really understand why anyone thinks dominion status is anything special. The 'self-governing colonies' had their own parliaments, foreign policies, etc., etc.

Edit: As for why the 'dominions' exist and the other colonies don't; because the dominions were white settler colonies. With exception to S. Africa, they were all white majority. In S. Africa, the blacks had no real say in governance.
 
Canada, New Zealand, etc. were independent countries - they hold the same status today that had back then, as no formal 'declaration of indepence' has ever been created. I don't really understand why anyone thinks dominion status is anything special. The 'self-governing colonies' had their own parliaments, foreign policies, etc., etc.

Well London still dictated the dominions' foreign policy till each ratified the statute of Westminster (Canada, Ireland and South Africa did this in 1931, then the rest did by 1947).
 
There's obviously going to be a difference between a colony where Englishmen are sent out to populate somewhere (Aus/NZ/Canada/US/South Africa) and one where they are sent to rule over existing peoples simply in order to protect trade routes or privileges (India/rest of Africa).

In Australia there were initially military governors and they were followed by elected representatives under a political governor as the population became richer (more middle class we would say now) and larger. Independence didn't change how people were governed all that much by the end. Such a system would never have worked in India.

Incidentally, are we doing your homework for you?
 
The internet is a good second brain.

Regarding why some colonies were given responsible government and others were not, well it is as said by the above. NZ, Australia, Canada and the various SA provinces each had large, organised British or other European settler groups who expected and demanded self governance rights, like their compatriots in Britain received (or more so).

The immigrant settlers came to the colonies with clear expectation and experience of British models of administration or governance and it is only natural they began to replicate or improve upon such in the new lands.
 
Last edited:
Top