Why Decolonization Should Always be Used Over Neocolonial Restructuring

EJ Simmons

Aug 3

3 min read

As Israelis continue to enforce apartheid policies in Palestine and Russian-controlled proxy states remain active across the globe, it is clear that decolonization is superior to neocolonial restructuring. Furthermore, neocolonial restructuring causes significant tension and conflict over borders and control. Before making an argument, it is necessary to understand the structural differences between these two concepts. Decolonization is defined as the historical and political process through which a colonized territory achieves formal independence from an imperial power, dismantling foreign political control, withdrawing colonial administration, and establishing self-governing national sovereignty. Decolonization involves both legal self-determination—such as securing a flag, constitution, defined borders, and UN membership—and cultural reclamation, which entails restoring indigenous languages, education systems, and local histories suppressed under imperial rule. By contrast, neocolonial restructuring is a system of indirect control whereby a former imperial power or foreign global entity uses economic leverage, international financial policy, trade agreements, and diplomatic pressure to influence the domestic policies and resources of an officially independent nation. Coined by Pan-African leader Kwame Nkrumah, neocolonialism describes a nation that possesses all the outward symbols of formal independence (a government, laws, and national borders), while its core economic trajectory and natural resources remain directed by outside powers.

Now that we have established this understanding, it is clear that decolonization is superior due to the genuine independence it provides to nations. Historically, decolonization has led to the establishment of sovereign nations such as the United States, Australia, and Brazil. The success of these countries is largely attributable to the diminished influence their former colonial rulers exerted over their post-independence development. However, it is also fair to note that independent states do not always succeed immediately, given the inherent risks and political experimentation required to build a new nation; examples of struggling post-colonial entities include nations dealing with instability, such as Haiti, Myanmar, and Sudan. While these challenges are significant, the colonial behavior displayed by empires in prior centuries remains fundamentally responsible for the necessity of returning self-determination and land to indigenous populations. Because decolonization is the primary mechanism through which true sovereignty is achieved, completing this process remains an imperative.

Additionally, neocolonial restructuring has produced states such as Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, and Gabon. These nations were established with economies heavily burdened by debt and tethered to their former colonial powers. Consequently, these states struggle to develop due to financial obligations and a lack of true economic sovereignty. It is evident that neocolonial restructuring results in inherently worse developmental outcomes for post-colonial nations. Furthermore, foreign powers often lack an understanding of local cultures and politics, leading to persistent and long-lasting conflicts. A prominent example is the British mandate period and the subsequent establishment of Israel in 1948, which failed to adequately navigate the deep-seated religious and territorial dynamics of the region, leading to ongoing conflict with Palestinian populations. Similarly, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many post-Soviet states gained formal independence, yet Russia maintained influence over their economies and political alliances. This ongoing struggle for genuine economic and geopolitical independence has directly contributed to recent conflicts across Eastern Europe.