Fetichism in West Africa : $b forty years' observation of native customs and superstitions
John Stuart Mill · en
In all governments fear is recognized as one of the grounds for the
enforcement of law. In even the freest nations and under the highest form
of civilization the public opinion that administers law makes its demand
partly in the interest of essential right, partly with the instinct of
self-preservation against the forces of evil, and partly for the
punishment of wrong. Punishment in itself is not reformatory; it is
retributive; it is deterrent; it plays upon fear.
In the native African tribal forms of government, while it would not be
true to say that there is no justice in the customs they recognize, it is
true that the only sentiment appealed to, in the enforcement and even in
the enactment of supposed needed measures, is that of fear. Their religion
being one of fear, it is therefore appealed to to lend its sanction and
aid.
"Fetiches are set up to punish offenders in certain cases where there is
an intention to make a law specially binding; this refers more
particularly to crimes which cannot always be detected. A fetich is
inaugurated, for example, to detect and punish certain kinds of theft;
persons who are cognizant to such crimes, and who do not give information,
are also liable to be punished by the fetich. The fetich is supposed to be
able not only to detect all such transgressions, but has power, likewise,
to punish the transgressor. How it exercises this knowledge, or by what
means it brings sickness and death upon the offender, cannot, of course,
be explained; but, as it is believed in, it is the most effectual
restraint that can possibly be imposed upon evil-disposed persons."[58]
Among the Negro tribes of the Bight of Benin and the Bantu of the region
of Corisco Island and of the Ogowe River, in what is now the
Kongo-Français, there was a power known variously as Egbo, Ukuku, and
Yasi, which tribes, native chiefs, and headmen of villages invoked as a
court of last appeal, for the passage of needed laws, or the adjudication
of some quarrel which an ordinary family or village council was unable to
settle.
In those councils an offender could be proved guilty of a debt or theft,
or other trespass, and when it was no longer possible for him by audacity
or mendacity to persist in his assertion of innocence, he would yield to
the decision of the great majority against him. But there was no central
government to enforce that decision or exact from him restitution. The
only authority the native chiefs possessed was based on respect due to
age, parental position, or strength of personal character. If an offender
chose to disregard all these considerations, an appeal was then made to
his superstitious fear.