Merits:
* Reduced administrative costs: Utilizing existing chiefs and councils meant fewer colonial administrators were needed, saving the colonial power money and resources.
* Preservation of some local traditions and customs: While often manipulated, indirect rule sometimes allowed for the continued existence of certain aspects of local culture and governance. This could lessen the immediate disruption to society compared to direct rule.
* Easier implementation in some areas: In diverse and geographically large territories, establishing a completely new administrative system from scratch would be incredibly challenging. Indirect rule provided a quicker, albeit imperfect, solution.
* Less resistance in some cases: Utilizing existing power structures could sometimes reduce local resistance, as cooperation with familiar leaders could be more readily achieved. This wasn't always the case, however.
* Greater understanding of local contexts (potentially): Working through existing local leaders potentially offered colonial administrators a greater insight into the intricacies of local society and politics, although this understanding was often filtered through the lens of the colonial power's interests.
Demerits:
* Reinforcement of existing inequalities: Indirect rule often solidified and exacerbated existing social hierarchies and inequalities, as it frequently propped up existing elites who were often already privileged and exploitative.
* Limited reach and effectiveness: The system's effectiveness was largely dependent on the cooperation and competence of local leaders, which wasn't always guaranteed. It often lacked reach in remote areas or where local leadership was weak or fragmented.
* Corruption and exploitation: Local rulers could use their positions to exploit their people for personal gain, often with the implicit or explicit consent of the colonial power. The colonial administration often turned a blind eye to corruption to maintain stability.
* Suppression of dissent and political development: Indirect rule actively prevented the development of modern, representative government, as it stifled the growth of alternative political structures and voices. This often led to increased tensions in the long run.
* Cultural distortion and erosion: While some local traditions were preserved, many others were disrupted or destroyed to serve the colonial agenda. The imposition of foreign laws and values led to the gradual erosion of indigenous cultures and practices.
* Arbitrary and unjust application of justice: The application of justice under indirect rule was often inconsistent and unfair, reflecting the biases and self-interests of the local rulers and the colonial administration.
In conclusion, while indirect rule might have offered some short-term administrative advantages for colonial powers, its long-term consequences were largely detrimental to the colonized populations, leading to sustained social and political instability, inequality, and hindered development. The "merits" were often overshadowed by the significant disadvantages.