How Empire Ruled the World

[RZM]

Compared with the six hundred years of the Ottoman Empire and two millennia of (intermittent) Chinese imperial rule, the nation-state is a blip on the historical horizon. The transition from empire has lessons for the present, and maybe the future

Why, in 2011, think about empires? We live in a world of nation-states — over 200 of them, each with their seat in the UN, their flag, postage stamps and governmental institutions. Yet the nation-state is an ideal of recent origin and uncertain future and, for many, devastating consequences

-snip-

It is not a question of sinking into imperial nostalgia: sentimental evocations of the British Raj or French Indochina have nothing to offer to our present political thinking. Similarly, imperial name-calling — invoking “empire” or “colonialism” to discredit US, French or other interventions — cannot help us analyse or improve today’s world. But an exploration of the histories of empires, old and new, can expand our understanding of how the world came to be what it is, and the organisation of political power in the past, the present and even the future.

-snip-

Thinking about empire does not mean resurrecting vanished worlds. It allows us rather to consider the multiplicity of forms in which power is exercised across space. If we can avoid thinking of history as an inexorable transition from empire to nation-state, perhaps we can think about the future more expansively. Can we imagine forms of sovereignty that are better able to address a world marked by inequality and diversity?

http://mondediplo.com/2012/01/13empire

I would tend to agree that looking closely at the successes and failures of imperial models is useful. But I also get the sense that the nation state is here to stay, even if some nation states that currently exist won't be around 100 years from now.

[ellisonz]

1. Perhaps. A lot can change in 100 years...

I agree that trying to model an imperial career can be useful, but it also has limits - there are always distinct and unique points that can be determinant.

[bemildred]

2. The last century has not been kind to empires, I expect that to continue.

If you look around, what you see is countries disintegrating (failed states) or fragmenting into two or more successor states, not federal arrangements growing or empires expanding. The world is awash in angry people with weapons, rebellions, and weak governments.

(I know, I know, what about the EU. Well, what about it?)

[Bucky]

3. Nation-states are more stable and less violent.

The violence of the 20th C was largely a result of the shift from empire to nation-state as the political norm. Now that the nation-state has become the expected model for sovereign countries, the world is a lot less violent--despite being exponentially more crowded.