Dakar retained compliant chiefs because cost and control ruled out alternatives

Evidence

This refusal is easily explained. In West Africa, association still offered sufficient advantages to the Government General for Dakar to turn a blind eye to the gap between its stated objectives and what was actually taking place. These advantages included the loyal allegiance of chiefs who had earlier revolted, and the containment of evolue demands. To have admitted that the chiefs were unable to represent both the French and the masses would have meant finding new intermediaries for administering the federation. The Government General understood that the only possible alternative intermediaries to these chiefs were paid French administrators or members of the new elite. The first option was unacceptable, for reasons of cost; the second was eliminated because, as Dakar realized, the new elite would have demanded a greater say in policy making than the chiefs they replaced. The only safe choice, when it came to preserving Dakar’s authority intact, was to retain the old regime in office. — Alice L. Conklin, A Mission to Civilize_ The Republican…, 734

Categorization

• XREF: This is the classic colonial strategy of ‘indirect rule’ through co-opted intermediaries, comparable to Lugard’s Nigeria and later arguments about African agency and collaboration.
• DEFINE: Clarifies what ‘association’ meant in practice — not an ideology but a pragmatic choice to keep chiefs who had previously revolted in place.