Many Africans in the Federation, probably a majority of them, reject "partnership" just as vehemently as the most race-conscious Europeans.
This phenomenon is easily understandable in the context of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, where the "paramountcy" of African interests had been regarded as the touchstone of British colonial policy until 1953. "Partnership" suggests a retreat from "paramountcy." It implies an arithmetical sleight-of-hand which somehow purports to balance the interests of almost five million Africans in the two Protectorates against 70,000 whites.
In African eyes, the white-settler populations of Northern Rhodesia should, by numerical rights, constitute little more of a multiracial balance to the African majority than those of Tanganyika. The white settlers of Nyasaland are really as proportionately insignificant as those of Ghana. In neither of these graduates of the colonial system was it thought necessary to create an artificial balance of power between the races. In neither territory was "partnership" considered a reasonable definition of the relation between the overwhelming majority and a tiny minority. In both instances, the rise of political power of the African majority is being achieved without creating artificial, undemocratic political safeguards for European interests. And yet, in neither instance has there been any evidence that African political ascent has endangered the safety either of the European minority or of European capital.
Why, then, have Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland not been allowed to follow their natural destinies as African states of the same cut as Ghana and Tanganyika? Africans believe it is primarily because