Imperial Liberties: Democratisation and Governance in the ‘New’ Imperial Order

Abstract

Notions of empire and imperialism have increasingly returned to the lexicon of mainstream theorisation of the international. Much of this literature identifies a ‘new’ imperialism, distinct from the supposed postand non-imperial global(ising) order of the Westphalian state system. The article contends that such accounts occlude our understanding of the ‘long’ history of imperialism. It argues that the putatively post-imperial institutions and discourses of ‘global governance’ are internally related to ‘post-colonial’ imperialism. In particular the regime of ‘democratisation’ and the curtailing of democratic freedom constitute a principal means through which imperial rule is articulated. Despite a vast literature on ‘democratisation’, there has been a paucity of analysis which interrogates the Great Power-defined agenda of democratisation. Mainstream accounts presuppose what requires explanation, taking for granted the non-imperial character of this global project, the hegemony of a specific and impoverished model of (neo)liberal democracy, highly problematic, de-historicised notions of state, society and self and the categorical separation of the ‘domestic’ and the ‘international’. The article provides detailed substantive analysis of the endeavour by the dominant social agents of the democratisation project to constitute a (neo)liberal procedural notion of democracy in the ‘post-colonial’ world. It identifies the dominant social agents of this project and explores the theoretical underpinnings of the dominant model being propounded. Informed by this, the article examines the democratisation project according to coveted transformations in three domains: the minimal, ‘neutral’ state, the constitution of ‘civil society’ and the promotion of the liberal ‘self’. The article contends that far from an alternative to imperialism, ‘democratisation’ involves the imposition of a Western (neo)liberal procedural form of democracy on imperialised peoples. The character of the ‘informal’ imperial order is such that self-determination does not mean autonomy. Rather it means the ‘freedom’ to embrace the rules, norms and principles of the emerging (neo)liberal global order.