Decolonisation
The Flag Goes Up, the Structures Stay: Why Independence Was Only Half the Story
When Ghana raised its new flag in 1957, the British-built civil service, the British-drawn borders, and the British-owned companies all stayed exactly where they were.
The Idea
Decolonisation is usually told as a story of endings — the last governor boards the plane, the colonial flag comes down, a new nation is born. But what independence movements confronted almost immediately was how little the formal transfer of sovereignty changed the underlying architecture of power. Frantz Fanon, the Martinican psychiatrist who became the intellectual conscience of anti-colonial struggle, called this out with uncomfortable clarity in 'The Wretched of the Earth' (1961): political independence without economic and psychological transformation was simply a handover of the keys to a building whose foundations were never built for the people now living in it. The term scholars reach for is 'neocolonialism' — coined by Ghana's first president, Kwame Nkrumah, in 1965. His argument was that formal empire had been replaced by subtler instruments of control: foreign-owned corporations, debt conditionality from international lenders, military alliances, and the continued dominance of colonial languages in law, education, and government. The coloniser had left the room but hadn't left the building. This is what makes decolonisation genuinely unfinished business rather than a historical chapter. The borders of African nations, drawn by European diplomats at the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 without reference to existing ethnic, linguistic, or ecological boundaries, still govern the continent today. The legal systems, the university curricula, the economic dependencies — much of this scaffolding remains. Decolonisation, it turns out, was a beginning, not a conclusion.
In the World
Consider the case of the CFA franc — a currency still used by fourteen African nations across West and Central Africa as of the mid-2020s. Its name derives from 'Colonies Françaises d'Afrique.' After independence, France restructured but did not dissolve the arrangement: member countries are required to deposit a significant portion of their foreign exchange reserves with the French Treasury in Paris, and the currency's exchange rate is guaranteed by France. In practical terms, this means that monetary policy for over 180 million people is shaped, in part, by decisions made in a foreign capital. For decades, this arrangement was barely discussed in Western media. Then, in 2017, Italian deputy prime minister Luigi Di Maio made a blunt statement about it — and suddenly a mechanism that African economists and activists had been critiquing for years became international news. Senegalese economist Ndongo Samba Sylla had been writing about it for years; so had Cameroonian historian Kako Nubukpo. Their arguments weren't new — what changed was who was amplifying them. In 2019, a reform was announced: the currency would be rebranded the 'eco,' reserve requirements adjusted, and French representatives removed from oversight bodies. Critics noted that the fundamental link to Paris remained, and the rebrand stalled. The episode illustrates precisely what Nkrumah meant: independence can coexist with profound dependence, and the mechanisms holding that dependence in place can be remarkably durable — and remarkably invisible until someone points at them.
Why It Matters
Understanding decolonisation as a process rather than an event changes how you read almost every major geopolitical story of the last seventy years — from Cold War proxy conflicts, to IMF structural adjustment programmes, to contemporary debates about who sits on the UN Security Council, to the question of why reparations conversations feel so charged and so stuck. It also sharpens how you encounter institutions much closer to home: museums holding objects acquired under colonial conditions, universities whose endowments were built on colonial trade, legal frameworks whose assumptions were shaped in an era of explicitly racialised hierarchy. 'Decolonise the curriculum' sounds like an academic slogan until you realise it is asking a specific, researchable question: whose knowledge got encoded as universal, and why? Carrying this lens doesn't require you to flatten everything into a single narrative of victimhood and villainy — history is rarely that obliging. But it does ask you to look at the present and notice which structures feel natural simply because they are old, and to ask whether 'old' and 'legitimate' are actually the same thing.
A Question to Ponder
Which institutions or systems in your daily life feel neutral or natural — and what would it mean to ask who designed them, and for whom?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable