fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Ghosts of Empire: Understanding the British Empire For What It Was

I have started reading Kwasi Kwarteng’s Ghosts of Empire, which I mentioned on Sunday. The final passage from Kwarteng’s introduction to the U.S. edition caught my attention: Transitions from British rule to independence were difficult, as the Pax Britannica imposed in the first place was itself transient and without any firm foundation. The British Empire […]

I have started reading Kwasi Kwarteng’s Ghosts of Empire, which I mentioned on Sunday. The final passage from Kwarteng’s introduction to the U.S. edition caught my attention:

Transitions from British rule to independence were difficult, as the Pax Britannica imposed in the first place was itself transient and without any firm foundation. The British Empire was nothing more than a series of improvisations conducted by men who shared a common culture but often had very different ideas about government and administration. There is very little unifying ideology in the story of Britain’s empire. It was grand and colourful but also highly opportunistic; it was dominated by individualism and pragmatic concerns. The British Empire is a bizarre model to follow for fostering stability in today’s world. Indeed, much of the instability in the world is the product of its legacy of individualism and haphazard policy making.

When Kwarteng refers to individualism here, he is talking about what he calls the “anarchic individualism” of different imperial administrators that contributed to the “haphazard policy making.” One need only look at the news from many of the former territories of the empire to see the legacy of instability that was left behind. As he stresses throughout the introduction, the imperial administration was anything but the liberalizing project some of its neo-imperialist admirers try to make it out to be now. Commenting on the career of Alfred Millner, Kwarteng explains:

Millner’s career touches on another important point. It is mistaken to think that administrators were motivated by liberal ideas of democracy. In many cases, they chose careers in the empire precisely because they were not democrats. They were elitists who sought to wield power without having to undergo the inconvenience of winning votes….To argue that Millner and his colleagues were promoting democracy stretches the truth. The empire stood for order and the rule of law, but we must not pretend that its character was other than it was. The imperial administration was highly elitist, stratified and snobbish. It was the very opposite of the egalitarian, plural and liberal institution that some recent historians have portrayed.

While it is possible for states that have more or less liberal democratic constitutions at home to build empires, it doesn’t seem possible that there can ever be such a thing as a liberal or liberalizing empire. The policies used to create and sustain an empire will always contradict and violate political principles of government by consent, self-determination, popular sovereignty, and respect for personal liberties.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here