Teodoro Tagliaferri, Bernardo Paci, The Company-State as a Form of British Colonial Projection in Africa: The Case of the British South Africa Company

This paper examines the British South Africa Company (BSAC) as a company-state and its role in British colonial projection in Africa, with a focus on the myths of legitimation it employed during its administration of Rhodesia from 1889 to 1923. Taking into account the framework of company-states and the doctrine of the dual mandate – balancing economic profit with the supposed duty to civilize Indigenous peoples – the analysis underscores how BSAC's ideological narratives evolved to sustain colonial domination. Drawing on archival sources such as BSAC Directors’ Report and Accounts and Native Commissioners’ records, the study identifies six key myths: (1) peaceful colonization via treaties, (2) opposition to the Arab slave trade, (3) protection of the Shona from the Ndebele, (4) self-defence of white settlers, (5) the civilisational mission, and (6) Cecil Rhodes’ mythological connection to Great Zimbabwe as a restoration of ancient white rule. These myths, aimed at British shareholders and the imperial public, provided shifting justifications for conquest and exploitation, while concealing coercive practices such as forced labour and land appropriation. The analysis highlights the interplay between BSAC’s economic motives and its political narratives, reflecting the dual mandate’s inherent contradictions. Indigenous resistance, particularly during anti-colonial uprisings like the First and Second Chimurenga, challenged colonial stereotypes and forced the adaptation of legitimizing myths accordingly. For instance, early portrayals of Indigenous groups as submissive gave way to depictions of them as threatening, justifying harsher colonial control. By situating BSAC within the broader study of company-states, this research reveals the ideological function of such entities in maintaining imperial rule. It underscores the fluidity of colonial ideologies, shaped by local contexts and resistance, and challenges static interpretations of colonial administration as purely metropolitan constructs.