Britain and Kenya’s Constitutions, 1950–1960 By Robert Maxon

Labour Party. Finally, it emerged that European settler political opinion in Kenya was not enthusiastic for an East African federation, nor was there a huge demand for self-government among the settler community during the war.

Even before Dawe completed his federation scheme, voices were raised against it. Particularly strong criticism came from Macmillan. In an August memo, the future prime minister argued that Kenya was not “fitted to maintain a white population of all classes.” Dawe’s federal plan would do little to address the fundamental problem in colonial Kenya: land. Macmillan predicted that African land hunger would be the cause of future dilemmas far more serious than those Dawe sought to defuse with his scheme. Macmillan thus proposed that this essential problem be addressed by buying out the settlers, rather than giving them self-government in the highlands, and turning the highlands over to African cultivators through the establishment of state and collective farms.¹⁵

Yet Dawe continued to press for action as soon as possible. In doing so, he raised another issue of fundamental importance in considering decolonization. Dawe looked to a future in which Britain would need friends and allies in Africa. He wrote, “Moreover, the indications are that the African colonies are going before long to be a theatre for a severe struggle for power and influence. It seems likely that in this process the British cause would be best furthered if we could, in good time, build up some good strong blocks of territory in its support.”¹⁶

Nevertheless, no agreement proved possible on Dawe’s scheme or for the alternative ideas put forward by Moore. For example, G. F. Seel, head of the EAD of the CO, raised critical questions. The most worrying for him was that if the scheme should be “designed, or likely to place, the native inhabitants indefinitely under the domination of an immigrant minority,” there would be great trouble in the future. This was so because minority independence for Kenya went completely against previous British policy, which had stressed African paramountcy as its goal. From this premise, Seel proposed a different approach, one that was reflective of British policy after the war. He wrote,