Anti-Imperialism has been a strong theme in a great deal of the academic
literature we have read. Western Imperialism has been presented almost as a
unique event in history; an unprecedented intrusion both horrendous and
inexcusable by the West upon the rest of the world. Writers like Said
portray every act of the West as imperialistic aggression; by his philosophy
the mere influence of Western ideas, culture, and commerce on non-Western
societies is reprehensible imperialism. Ironically, it has taken an Islamic
writer to remind us of the essential role imperialism plays in the power
dynamics of human civilization. While never speaking explicitly of
imperialism, Khaldun’s explanation of history depends on the assumption that
mankind is fundamentally imperialistic by his very nature.
Khaldun’s treatise is not a work of some early form of Social Darwinism as
Machiavelli’s could arguably be; the Muqaddimah focuses on the internal
politics of a dynasty throughout its life cycle rather than the
relationships between competing factions and peoples. A Darwinist
philosophy would attempt to justify the subjugation of foreign peoples
through appeals to such ideas as the right of the strong to rule the weak.
Paranoia is also a consideration; a Darwinist knows that there can be no
rest for the strong, for the envious masses will take any opportunity to
destroy those more powerful than themselves. Thus imperialism is justified
as the responsibility of the strong; a defensive measure to prevent the
barbarians from demolishing the more advanced society. Such issues are not
the concern of the Muqaddimah; Khaldun is interested in the nature of power
and imperialism, not the justification for it.
Khaldun’s "group feeling" is not Putnam’s social capital; it is closer to
Huntington’s cultural identity. It is an identification with a group at the
expense of all those outside the group. Khaldun says that it is difficult
to establish a dynasty in a place where there is a lot of group feeling
because there is too much independent initiative and unrest among the local
tribes. He also claims that it is easy for a dynasty to rule over a place
with little or no group feeling because the people there will not group
together to organize a resistance. Group feeling is the drive for self-rule,
the prerequisite for the establishment of royal authority from within a
group. Where there is strong group feeling, there is factionalism and
rivalry because all the little groups have this independent mindset. Where
there is no group feeling, the people complacently accept the imposition of
authority from without. This is imperialism.
Khaldun describes the basic life cycle of every dynasty in terms of group
feeling. A leader who can muster a great deal of loyalty based on group
feeling can pull the tribes together to form a dynasty. This core of loyal
tribes then makes up the foundation of the empire; he describes how the
potential size of the empire is a function of the numerical strength of the
original group of tribes. This is basically a discussion of the limits of
imperial expansion. The original group is dominated by group feeling; the
dynasty has legitimacy in their society because it was created from within,
not imposed from without. With this loyal following serving as the backbone
of the army and later the administration, the dynasty expands to its limit
through a variety of means, conquest not least among them. All the peoples
under the empire not of the original following are subjugated; they are
objects of imperialism.
As a dynasty grows feeble, it must become more despotic. Khaldun describes
this cycle in detail; after consolidating its power the dynasty must replace
its original following with retainers dependent on it for their position.
This results in a loss of the group feeling which made the empire possible.
The dynasty must rely on the resources of the empire to maintain its
position, since it can no longer derive strength from the group feeling of
its following. Thus it must increase taxes and tighten laws. This
despotism results in the formation of stronger opposition; peoples who still
have strong group feeling draw together. Their drive for self-rule induces
them to find leadership from among themselves and to oppose the outside rule
imposed upon them. This is expressed as Nationalism in the modern world.
The subjugated peoples of the non-Western world have thrown off the yoke of
modern imperialism through the development of nationalistic group feeling,
determination for autonomy, and self-rule. A people cannot be given
self-rule; they can only take it. Self-rule is not the same as autonomy,
which is granted only after the imperial power is beaten away.
Western imperialism has declined and for the most part ended, by any
reasonable definition of the word "imperialism." Said would define the
standard acts of self-favoring foreign policy in which every state must
engage as imperialistic ventures when conducted by the West against
non-Western peoples. In order to allow for the possibility that a state
might protect its interests and support its initiatives without being
labeled imperialist, I will use "imperialism" to refer only to the overt
subjugation of one state or people to the rule of another. In this sense
the modern Western empires have declined and fallen according Khaldun’s
formula. None of the Western powers have been destroyed, but their empires
have eroded to the point that they are reduced to ruling over little or no
more than their original states. These are still supported by their
original group feeling, or as it is known at this level, nationalism. They
remain intact because, though their power has declined to the point that
they cannot hold other peoples under subjugation, they never lost their
nationalism and thus they still have the power to maintain the strength of
the core following—the original state.