Empires of the Future

“The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.”

Sir Winston Churchill

Speech at Harvard, 6 September 1943

It is long past time to be running empires in the conventional sense and even in the neo-imperialist sense.

Fascism killed the spirit of empire. Germany and Japan broke the unwritten rule, they subjugated white people. Christian people. No. That was not on. Empire was about subduing and civilizing Johnny foreigner for his own good, spreading the word of God, expanding Christendom and glorifying the nation. It was often profitable but that was not by any means the only or principle motivation. Playing the empire game was just what you did. It was expected. Unquestioned.

It wasn’t necessary to have a clear idea of why you were doing it or which motivation came out on top. It was a very tangled web that was being woven. Did anybody sit down and decide whether it was profitable to have a colony on the Falkland Islands or whether raising the flag over a glacier and a home for millions of penguins represented a good investment? I don’t think so. As long as the empire as a whole was bringing in some money and the people felt better for having it then the empire as a whole was good.

Profitable to whom? Was any Royal Navy officer ever disciplined for claiming possession of an island or country on the basis that it wouldn’t be profitable for the empire to hold it? I am not aware of any such a thing ever happening.

By the first half of the twentieth century there were plenty of voices raised against the empire from the colonies, especially those with large indigenous communities. This was in the main a demand from those who saw the chance to replace the colonial administration with themselves. The movement for independence featured ambitious individuals on the make. Naturally their struggles for power were characterized by themselves and their hagiographers as struggles for freedom, independence and national self-determination. But the main impact of decolonization was to replace democratically accountable governments (albeit accountable to another demos) with talented and charismatic tyrants and kleptocrats [kleptocracy = rule by thieves]. It is a well known adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely it should also be pointed out that the effect is especially strong when it happens quickly. A lawyer or army colonel who suddenly gets his hands on tens of millions and the trappings of power is likely to be corrupted more quickly and more comprehensively than a man who has spent fifteen to twenty years working his way up through the ranks of a modern democratic party in a mature and open democracy. Have everybody who helped you get into power arrested, replace them with people who are now going to be dependent on you, ideally having them incriminate themselves as they do it so they associate defending your power with protecting their own position. People need to be grateful to you, gratitude is a form of power, being grateful to others is a form of weakness. Within weeks you have a secure system, a fancy uniform, invitations to dinner from the queen, your head on the stamps and your special people stamping on the heads of your ordinary people. And all in the name of the people’s democracy and anti-colonialism.

The United Nations looked upon the old system of a colony as evil because a foreign power was in control and the new system is good because it is under indigenous control. To the UN it matters not one jot that the old system was democratic, secular, liberal, progressive, accountable, law-governed, peaceful, efficient and modern while the new system is corrupt, undemocratic, tyrannical, inefficient, chaotic, tribal and oppressive. The only thing that matters is the nationality of the people running the show. Nothing else matters at all. Four legs good, two legs bad.

There is no doubt about it that there is a capacity within an empire to do down a colony and to harm the interests of its people. Empires can be oppressive and repressive. But the only thing that empires always repress is alternative power structures. If you are not fighting the legions and are paying your taxes what possible reason is there for the empire to do you down? If you are not a member of the previous leadership (or a possible member of a future independent leadership) what reason do you have to fight against the empire just because it is foreign? What is to be gained by fighting off an empire, becoming the enemy of the empire and paying tax to a new government instead? Somehow the no taxation without representation bit seems a little lame when faced with the prospect of fighting a war first with the very real danger of getting yourself killed, your family uprooted and your property and capital wiped out or appropriated by one side or the other. It would only seem worthwhile if there was very real oppression going on, the imperial forces would have to be either inept, corrupt or wantonly oppressive. A rebellion could only occur if the imperial force screwed up or the rebels were very persuasive and charismatic.

Of course history tells us that empires do break up. Somehow colonial people come to believe that they have something to gain by “throwing off the yoke of the oppressor”. History is much less clear as to whether the former colonies actually enjoy independence. Of course all ex-colonies celebrate their independence day, it is a central part of their national myth. They gain a public holiday and a flag to wave. But do they really gain much else?

What is the value of independence? Take Roman Britain for an example. When the Romans left Britain civilization collapsed and competing warlords took over. Maybe a few dozen people in the entire country had a better life, millions were worse off. A few dozen people had more wealth and power. Most people had no power and little wealth either before or after, but now they were disrupted by wars and skirmishes between competing warlords. So what was the value of “national self determination” for the people of Britain?

“Hooray! We’re no longer being oppressed by foreigners. No, were being oppressed by people who speak our own language instead. We don’t have to pay taxes to keep a professional army. No. We’re made to fight ourselves instead. Hoo-bloody-ray for national self determination.”

Atheism \| Politics \| Life \| Feedback \| Email \| Search \| Forum \| Blog \| Home
Tweet	© 1999 - 2011 by Martin Willett.	mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited