Although Mauritania officially abolished slavery in 1981, making it the last country in the world to do so, slavery still exists there in practice. Persistent local and international activism, as well as the development of a democratic discourse have helped express and amplify the pleas of Mauritania’s enslaved and formerly enslaved people, and have brought some positive changes. But although some progress has been made, much more still needs to be done. Only serious educational, legal, and economic reforms will produce fundamental changes and help abolish the conditions that support the perpetuation of slavery in Mauritania.
An Entrenched Practice
Slavery has long been common in Mauritania, with the country’s economically and politically dominant Arab and Amazigh people (collectively referred to as Bidan) historically enslaving Black people from the Northwest Sahara (also referred to as Black Moors). Most formerly enslaved people and their descendants are known as the Haratin and form a separate ethnolinguistic group. They speak Hassaniya, a local Arabic dialect that the Bidan also speak, and constitute around 40 percent of the Mauritanian population.
France declared an end to slavery in Mauritania in 1905 during its colonial occupation of the country, but ultimately declined to enforce the decision because, it said, it wanted to respect local traditions and the Mauritanian social fabric, while also protecting the colonial and local economies. Colonial discourse gradually evolved from this position, making a distinction between the slave trade, which it considered illegal, and domestic slavery, which was allegedly sanctioned by Islam and thus permitted or at least tolerated. The full implementation of abolition was therefore hindered by a combination of French political and economic interests and pressure from Mauritanian slave owners, whose interests often intersected with colonial ones.
The full implementation of abolition was therefore hindered by a combination of French political and economic interests and pressure from Mauritanian slave owners, whose interests often intersected with colonial ones.
Tackling slavery head on in Mauritania was then delayed further by broader developments on the African continent. The wave of decolonization that shaped the post-World War II era came hand in hand with debates around industrialization, urbanization, economic development, and the role of the working classes. The argument against abolition in Mauritania maintained that since both enslaved and formerly enslaved people were bound to their enslavers by social ties and remained dependent on them, full emancipation would lead to “de-tribalization” that would hinder economic progress and the unity needed in the age of decolonization. As historian of slavery in Mauritania Ann McDougall has noted, the issue in the post-war period was more concerned with “the debate on decolonization and modernization elsewhere in Africa” than it was with social or labor issues. Those mostly affected by this discourse were Mauritania’s Haratin.
Slavery as an Economic Incentive
In the meantime, emancipation accelerated to fill the needs of the labor market, but without allowing formerly enslaved people to gain socioeconomic independence from slave holders. They remained tied to their former enslavers through social bonds, and through still being part of their labor force. In addition, the practice of freeing enslaved people did not mean freeing women, who were kept enslaved for their domestic labor, and also so that they could reproduce the labor force. In the Mauritanian system of slavery, the children of an enslaved woman, whether or not they were the biological children of her enslaver, belonged to him and thereby to his labor force. In this way, labor in Mauritania remained interlaced with not just the Haratin “working class” but also with Haratin women as the source of the reproduction of said class.
In the Mauritanian system of slavery, the children of an enslaved woman, whether or not they were the biological children of her enslaver, belonged to him and thereby to his labor force.
When Mauritania was declared an independent Islamic republic in 1960, there was no change in the fate of the Haratin or those who had been more recently enslaved. Slavery persisted under the pretext of preserving social hierarchy and cohesion, not to mention the country’s labor needs. Moreover, no practical or effective measures were implemented to enforce abolition. Nation-building and decolonization were still articulated through discourses of economic development, ethnic reconciliation, and national unity. Slavery was not yet a political issue in Mauritania.
A few factors coalesced to change this situation. Drought and famine pushed more Haratin and enslaved people from the desert in the interior to urban centers in the north, including the capital city Nouakchott. This not only made their case more visible, it also enmeshed them more tightly within the urban political structure.
The Haratin founded the emancipation movement El Hor in 1974 to give themselves a voice and to coordinate mobilization against the status quo. The movement sought both social and economic reform, eventually leading to confrontations with the government, which used numerous tactics to suppress it, including the torture and exile of Haratin activists. However, in July 1981 a new government decreed the abolition of slavery in an attempt to appease and co-opt outspoken Haratin. But these political gestures were not accompanied by practical measures to effectively enact the decree. Slavery therefore persisted in several forms, including child labor and servitude.
Meanwhile, another group of Black Mauritanians was feeling disenfranchised in postcolonial Mauritania, namely those of Soninke, Wolof, and Pulaar origins who were herders and cultivators along the Mauritanian border adjacent to the Senegal River. They were represented by political parties that emerged in Mauritania in the 1970s and that shared the Haratin’s dissatisfaction over the Bidan’s hegemony in the country. These groups’ politicization, combined with the Haratin’s activism, helped shape the “politics of slavery” of the 80s and 90s.
Gradual Changes on the Political Front
A 1982 BBC film on slavery in the country put Mauritania under the spotlight, bringing international scrutiny. To counter criticism, the Mauritanian government invited a fact-finding mission from the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and subsequently welcomed the commission’s resulting report condemning the “vestiges of slavery” in Mauritania. The government then leveraged the findings to request financial aid from the West, arguing that emancipation would be impossible without economic development. By then, the issue of slavery in Mauritania had become not only a matter of international political concern, it had also become politicized within the country as well.
El Hor oversimplified the situation in speaking to an international audience, outlining it as a dichotomy between white and Black, thereby drawing the sympathy of those familiar with American slavery. A border war between Mauritania and Senegal between 1989 and 1991 pushed many free Black Mauritanians to flee to Senegal, which served to reinforce this image. But lost in the picture was the fact that many of those who inflicted violence upon Black Mauritanians were Haratin serving as army personnel. In 1995, former members of El Hor created the organization SOS-Esclaves, which intended to appeal to international audiences by creating a united front between the Haratin and other formerly and still enslaved Mauritanians in order to present their case as a specifically Black racial matter.
The Haratin saw their integration into local Bidan families and their networks, as well as their earlier date of emancipation, as privileges that provided them with greater social capital than other groups of enslaved people.
Tension arose around this move, since the Haratin considered themselves socially superior to formerly enslaved people who had been more recently freed. They saw their integration into local Bidan families and their networks, as well as their earlier date of emancipation, as privileges that provided them with greater social capital than other groups of enslaved people. In the Haratin’s view, lumping all enslaved and formerly enslaved people together in one category defined by skin color undermined their social and political standing. Therefore, allying themselves with the most disenfranchised who lack resources is seen as a disadvantage by the Haratin, and to some, an affront. In addition, although skin color is indeed a marker of identity in Mauritania, the color distinction between the country’s groups has its limitations, since it speaks to a socially shared understanding of Black and white, rather than to a notion of racial purity.
In the 1990s, political developments in Mauritania shaped by the rule of Maaouya Ould Sid’Ahmed Taya, who seized power in 1984, began to stir up debates around democracy. Taya organized the country’s first elections in 1986, worked toward leading a transition to a civilian, multiparty rule, and conducted a referendum on a new constitution. Throughout the process, he faced opposition from both the military and the country’s Islamists, with both sides criticizing his foreign and domestic policies. Taya was overthrown by a military coup in August 2005. The military government held presidential elections in March 2007, but the new government was overthrown within a year by General Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, who subsequently resigned his military position and was elected president in 2009.
Slavery became central to national politics during this politically volatile time since elections depended on the votes of the Haratin who constitute about 40 percent of the population, as well as other formerly enslaved people who were eligible to vote. Slavery had therefore finally become a national affair. It was also made into an international matter by successive Mauritanian governments, and not just by activists who had long advocated for its eradication. For example, following his 2005 coup, Colonel Ely Ould Mohamed Vall used the issue of slavery to legitimize the coup by stating that slavery was unlawful per both international law and Islamic Sharia law, and that his government would “address the vestiges of slavery, no matter what form they may take.”
The Mauritanian government criminalized slavery in 2007, and again in 2015. But these declarations of law had little effect since the legal system was too complicit with enslavers.
The Mauritanian government criminalized slavery in 2007, and again in 2015. But these declarations of law had little effect since the legal system was too complicit with enslavers. In 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council reported that “despite laws, programs and difference of opinion with regard to the existence of slavery in Mauritania…de facto slavery continues to exist.” Indeed, slavery permeates Mauritanian culture and politics, and the country continues to fail to bring enslavers to justice.
Local activism and international pressure have been making a difference, though slowly. In a recent statement, UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery Tomoya Obokata welcomed the progress made so far to combat slavery in Mauritania and to more openly discuss slavery, but simultaneously urged the government to take more action. Obokata highlighted positive developments such as strengthening the legal system in order to punish perpetrators, increased national political will to discuss slavery openly, measures toward the socioeconomic inclusion of formerly enslaved people, and campaigns to raise awareness among the general public, the legal community, and security forces. However, he commented that, “Full enforcement of Mauritania’s anti-slavery legislation remained elusive,” and that much more work remains to be done to have an effective legal system and practical policies capable of uprooting slavery.
Obokata also observed that enslaved and formerly enslaved people, especially women and children, continue to suffer from mistreatment and abuse, and that child labor remains common. While socioeconomic conditions need to be improved to decrease the country’s dependence on slavery, progress will not happen without implementing the legal framework necessary to reach full emancipation and punish transgressors. A practical obstacle hindering real progress, Obokata said, is enslaved and formerly enslaved people’s difficulty accessing the country’s civil registry, without which they cannot gain access to education and basic services. Without these, there can be no meaningful freedom or real social integration.
More Work Is Needed
The legal emancipation of slaves in Mauritania has never actually translated into immediate freedom or the independence of enslaved people from the conditions of their enslavement. The Mauritanian case is not an exception in this regard, as modern slavery persists across the globe; but it is exceptional in the fact of its delayed legal emancipation of slaves and of slow official responses to the persistence of slavery. Legal emancipation does not automatically mean that a country’s institutions are ready to implement the necessary steps for formerly enslaved people to transition from slavery to freedom.
In Mauritania, poverty, the lack of access to education and state resources, and the absence of social ties beyond the household in which a person is enslaved are concrete shackles keeping the country from achieving meaningful emancipation. Identifying and recognizing conditions of enslavement therefore depend not on decrees and laws, but on the visibility of said conditions. Mauritania has traveled a long road on its path to eradicating slavery. But today it still seems to be only halfway there.