THE EFFECTS OF BRITISH COLONIALISM ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF MAURITIUS AND YEMEN

While the Indian Ocean World today faces ongoing crises, it is worth reflecting on the historical forces that created this instability in the first place. For much of this region, colonial rule meant not only oppression and separation from heritage but also the imposition of institutional models that continue to shape governance and development. As economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue, colonial institutions typically took one of two forms: extractive or inclusive. Extractive systems concentrated power in absolutist regimes, draining resources, weakening property rights, undermining law and order, and fostering markets dominated by barriers and unfair competition. Inclusive systems, while still exploitative, encouraged pluralism and cooperation, easing the transition to colonial rule and laying a foundation for rule of law and freer markets. These contrasting approaches can be seen in Britain’s colonization of Mauritius and Yemen, both occupied during similar periods and achieving nominal independence in the 1960s. Mauritius inherited relatively inclusive structures that supported a more egalitarian trajectory, while Yemen was left with extractive systems that hindered development and stability. By examining these divergent legacies, we can better understand how colonial strategies shaped the region’s present challenges and why revisiting these histories is essential to avoid repeating past mistakes.

History of British Colonization in Mauritius

British colonization in Mauritius was less disruptive than in many territories, largely because earlier French and Dutch rule had already introduced European-style governance. The British blended their bureaucratic practices with local institutions, creating a hybrid system that reshaped social and cultural life. The French slave-based economy was replaced by indentured labor from India, permanently altering the island’s demographics. English was established as the language of administration, while a formal education system reinforced colonial authority. Though still rooted in domination, this relatively inclusive model left lasting legacies in governance, language, and education that shaped Mauritius’s path toward stability and development.

History of British Colonization in Yemen

British colonization in Yemen centered on Aden, seized in 1839 as a naval base and vital passage to India. Its strategic location gave Britain military and economic dominance but clashed with local governance, leading to extractive institutions and violent resistance. Unlike Mauritius, integration was not adaptive but oppressive, with Yemeni authorities rejecting foreign legal and administrative control. To secure influence, Britain signed more than 90 treaties, carving out a protectorate around Aden to limit foreign interference. Yet these measures failed to quell demands for self-determination. Resource extraction, suppression of local practices, and political neglect left a legacy not of stability but of disruption, shaping Yemen’s ongoing struggles with fragmented governance and contested identity.

Comparison of the Current Political and Economic Development

The long-term effects of British colonial institutions are evident in the contrasting trajectories of Mauritius and Yemen since independence in the 1960s. Mauritius, shaped by more inclusive institutions, developed relative political stability and a stronger rule of law, supporting sustained economic growth. In contrast, Yemen inherited extractive institutions that undermined governance, stunted development, and fueled corruption. While Mauritius demonstrates Acemoglu’s argument that inclusive systems foster prosperity after colonization, Yemen illustrates how weak institutions trap nations in cycles of instability. Foreign interference only deepened these divisions, leaving Mauritius with a foundation for democracy and growth, while Yemen continues to struggle with fragmentation and stagnation. 

Applying Postcolonial Theories in the Current Scheme of Mauritius and Yemen

Aside from noting the empirical evidence of the effects of colonial establishment in Mauritius and Yemen, it is imperative to understand the definition of modernity and success–as defined by the West and applied to the rest of the world. Colonialism is by definition invasive and extractive, and history uses cases such as Mauritius to condone foreign interference towards a de facto sovereign territory permissible under the banner of further ‘modernizing’ and establishing a state under the rule of law and property rights. To better understand the divergence in the development of Mauritius and Yemen, the study will focus on the theory of Orientalism, to develop the explanation of the justification for said oppression, and the Hybridity to explain the theoretical foundations of Mauritius’ harmonization with Western values.

Orientalism 

The often-criticized binary of the Occidental versus the Oriental provides a lens to understand how colonial powers framed the East as inherently inferior and in need of Western guidance. In Mauritius, this view translated into an “inclusive” form of colonialism: British rule adapted to existing European institutions, portraying the island as a model colony capable of self-governance under Western tutelage. Yemen, by contrast, was cast through a more rigid Orientalist lens, valued only as a strategic outpost and subjected to extractive institutions that stifled political and economic development. This binary not only justified colonial dominance but also erased the complexity of pre-colonial societies, cementing narratives of dependency that persist today. The paradox is that both cases confirm the power of this framework: Mauritius achieved relative stability but at the cost of cultural identity, while Yemen was denied development altogether. Together, they illustrate how Orientalist assumptions shaped not just colonial strategies but the enduring inequalities of the postcolonial world.

Hybridity

Mauritius’s relative stability after independence can be traced to hybridity: the layering of French legal and cultural institutions with British governance, language, and the arrival of Indian labor that reshaped its demography. This mix created a plural social fabric capable of adapting to postcolonial statehood. Yemen, by contrast, was left with extractive colonial structures that deepened instability and offered no foundation for inclusive development. Yet it is important to remember that colonialism, even in its “inclusive” form, was always extractive by design, justified through Orientalist narratives that framed non-European societies as incapable of self-rule. Hybridity may explain Mauritius’s resilience, but it does not excuse the violence and dispossession at the root of both experiences. Yemen’s trajectory shows how deeply such systems could fracture a society, leaving damage that no reform can fully repair. The paradox is that the very states that enshrined self-determination in international law were those that denied it in practice. True justice, however elusive, lies in acknowledging these contradictions, remembering the victims of this rigged game, and striving toward reforms that empower nations to reclaim their histories on their own terms.

Bibliography

Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail : The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Profile, London, 2012. NDL-OPAC, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/[SITE_ID]/detail.action?docID=1743163. 

Beatrice Nicolini. “The Orient: A Vibrant Prism, Not a Static Reflection. Revisiting Postcolonial Theories between

East and West.”, 2025.

Coppedge, Michael, et al. Varieties of Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, 2020. NDL-OPAC, http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=031705430&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA, doi:10.1017/9781108347860. 

Donald, Jeremy. Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection. vol. 72, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, 2011. Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), https://www.proquest.com/docview/856818216.

Hart, Jane S. “Supplement to the Chronology: Basic Chronology for a History of the Yemen.” The Middle East Journal, vol. 17, no. 1/2, 1963, pp. 144–153. Periodicals Index Online Segment 26, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4323558. 

Lange, M. “Embedding the Colonial State: A Comparative-Historical Analysis of State Building and Broad-Based Development in Mauritius.” Social Science History, vol. 27, no. 3, 2003, pp. 397–423. CrossRef, doi:10.1215/01455532-27-3-397.