Comparing colonial rulers without excusing colonialism

Can British imperial rule be defended by saying it was preferable to Belgian or Portuguese rule?

Only as a relative historical comparison. No colonizer was good, though local leaders sometimes preferred one coercive option to another.

No state was a good colonizer. Some local leaders, facing surrounding imperial expansion, still compared the powers likely to take control. British rule could be preferred to other available options without becoming benign or voluntary. The distinction explains a historical choice under coercion while preserving responsibility for the colonial system itself.