Influence of British Colonial Policy on the State - Coursework Example

Assess the significance of colonial and external factors in the shaping and organization of the British This paper endeavours to argue a central theme, i.e. The British State was shaped by the constraints and opportunities presented by its colonial possessions. In the course of our argument we intend to employ a multidisciplinary approach, suitable to the logic and content of our intent of arriving at a conclusion. The choice of theoretical paradigm is based on their epistemological validity and relevance. By this the intent is not to undervalue or at the same time underscore any ideology but to fascilitate our argument for the purpose of this paper. The Marxist interpretation of Colonialism will be our point of departure, due to its scientific validity in our estimation. Thereafter, the Marxist stand point losses its relevance for our paper as it tends to adhere to a meta-analytical perspective and tends to be clichéd, lacking a predictive quality, whereas the paper requires to focus on British Colonialism and its reverse influence on the state structure of Britain. To fascilitate our argument we have appropriated and borrowed David Easton’s Systems’ Approach to comprehend the complexity of the reverse interaction in focus. Thereafter we will further our argument by referring to the useful categorization of Hanrieder to demonstrate that how colonial interests ultimately shaped the British state at the institutional level. Great Britain was a relatively late entrant on the world stage as a colonial power. The Spanish and Portuguese seaborne empires preceded Britain. These colonial empires were built on the linchpin of maritime power and subsequent colonial acquisitions. The dominance of Iberian Peninsula lasted roughly till late 16th century (Brewer.1989). This was what the Marxist call ‘Mercantile Period’. Britain as a mercantile state par-excellence began to dominate world colonial matrix by the end of 16th Century. One reason for emergence of Britain’s dominance was that the ‘industrial revolution had centered on Britain, thereby necessitating an “organization of production and accumulation”, designed to fascilitate a merchant capitalist economy, looking for raw material, cheap labour and markets for finished products’ ( Luxemberg.1951). Britain’s colonial expansion was propelled by the emerging needs of a nascent political economy which needed colonies. Thus at the outset of this epoch, British State geared itself to colonize and acquire territories to safeguard the interests of a mercantile state, thereby as a corollary almost canonizing principle of free trade and Lassaize-Fare. It has been argued that at least in the colonial sphere there was a muted consensus between the Tories and Whigs, the two differed at the micro level but agreed on the broader contours of colonial policy. Herein lie the seeds of ‘consensus’, which by osmosis filtered in to British domestic politics later, but this issue will occur in the later part of the discussion, for now it is suffice to argue that the weltanschauung of the British state and political structure was unified towards its colonies. This comprehension urges one to agree with what J.R.Seeley said, “[Britain had] conquered and peopled half the world in a fit of absence of mind” (Seeley.1887). Our agreement with Seeley comes from a different standpoint though; The British political structure was unanimous on colonies and unanimity was bipartisan. The British colonial expansion was ‘unspectacular’, thorough, as well as reluctant. It has been implied that ‘it is difficult to detect British Imperialism as a self-conscious ideology or guiding policy and Empire had rarely been at the center of political debate’ (Green.2007). Thus it may be considered as established by this line of argument that British Empire was a more or less consensus issue at the bipartisan level. Now we will turn our attention towards, taking forward our argument by analyzing the political processes and administrative relations, through which expansionist demands were fed in to the political system of Britain. Axiomatically speaking ‘the devil lies in the detail’, so we will now attempt to court the devil and examine at a micro level that, how the ‘political demands’ from the colonies fed in to the system and prompted political decision making. It would be best to begin our argument by first examining the framework that we intend to apply for our purpose. David Easton has defined ‘political demands’ as ‘requests for certain material and ideological outputs from a political system’ (Easton.1965). Demand ‘flow channels are the pathways [constructed within] the system through which these demands are fed in to the decision making process’ (ibid). These political demands via demand channels not only prompt policy decisions but also exert influence at the systemic structural level as well. Extending our argument at a different level, it may be understood that in term of system analysis, when we talk of colonial demands we also need to consider the international system, which forms the context. ‘ A national political system engaged in a policy of expansion whether through direct territorial annexations or informal extensions of economic and political influence, operate in the greater sphere of the international political system, where the interest of other national political systems are involved’(Cooney.1975). Thus the political demands from the colonies were conditioned by the international political system. These political demands are correlated, contextualized and ‘linked’ with the conditionalties of the international political system. In order to further clarify our argument it would be useful to briefly refer to the concept of ‘linkage’ developed by James. A. Rosenau. He argues that spheres of national political systems and international political systems overlap and interact through a complex system of linkages. Demands and conditionalties of one influence the other (Rosenau. 1969). W.F. Hanrieder has refined on the concept by formulating three different typologies of “referents”, a mechanism of linkages through which political goals are articulated and policy decision making occurs; these three types of referents are: 1. Internal: issues which are essentially domestic and necessitate formulation of policy goals, which do not need to have an external dimension beyond the borders. 2. External: Issues which are domestic in nature but have international implications both ways. 3. Systemic: Issues which as per decision makers perceptions, arise from distribution of power relationship in the international sphere but which have domestic implications. Thus ‘internal’ and ‘external’ demands emanate from within while ‘systemic’ demands have their origin outside the national political system (Hanrieder.1965). Thus ‘National policy makers must serve two constituencies-their domestic public and international system’ (Cooney.1975). It has been argued that for studying ‘British expansion a fourth and separate level of demands-Local Imperial Demands-which were not necessarily derived from either domestic or international pressures may be considered’ (Ibid), but our argument will tend to disagree with this formulation and it will be demonstrated that perhaps it would be more useful to contend with; viewing Colonial Demands in terms of ‘External’ System of referents among the categorization outlined above. Now we intend to substantiate our idea. It may be considered that as demonstrated earlier, we followed an argument that there was a Bipartisan ‘consensus’ on colonial policy. The crown colonies were considered as replicas of British systems and values. The legal system was replicated, granting paramouncy to the rule of law. The indigenous legal systems were deconstructed and a “received legal systems” was replicated in the colonies. The significance of colonial impact lies in the fact that it signified a clear break from the past for the colonies. It played a decisive role in changing and redesigning the social and political structures, ostensibly to serve Imperial interests (Pasha.1998). Colonization acted as a catalyst in the transition of colonies from the medieval to modern phase of history by redefining the relationships and linkages between state and society in the colonies through conscious design. Colonial impact altered the traditional structure at two levels. On the one hand, it assigned new functional roles to the British colonial state. That is the state now was required to perform a new set of functions, like regulating and planning an economic system and market (Sutton.1963). The modern economic system was to replace the traditional setup. These new functions of the state necessitated new modes of intrusion by the state, into the colonial society and to perform these intrusive functions, a modern bureaucratic mechanism was created to do the job. This bureaucratic structure was institutionalized through recruitment patterns and service structures. This institutionalization although was extra-territorial to Britain but it had its links and channels with the Metropole through offices like Colonial and India Office. Thus colonial office was the channel that fed these demands in to the British political system and formed the ‘referent’. Individuals like Cecil Rhodes, George Goldie and institutions like Calcutta Office in India, formed an integral source of consistent demand on British Political system through Colonies and India Office. The demands also operated through networks like ‘old boys’ network and merchant capital interest groups. Thus it is argued that as per the categorization the colonial demands on the system can be grouped as ‘external’ thereby situating them within the British state and political structure. We have internalized the colonial demands mechanism within the British structure; the need now arises as to how this internalization affected the shape and organization of British state. Firstly it is pointed out that the existence of a separate channel and pathway of feeding in the colonial demands itself points to the organization of the British Imperial state and the British Imperial Service which promoted British Interests was part and participle of the state organization. British system systemized the empire through organization and creating embedded linkages through Imperial Service and Colonial and India Office. Secondly in terms of shaping the British State, it is argued that Imperial interest sowed the seed of the ‘consensus’ in British politics; the consensus which emerged and matured after WWII. This tradition of consensus about the core values of British Political structure, which manifested itself in its imperial policy, resurfaced and remerged, for domestic policy in the post war years. The colonial interest were external in terms of being extra-territorial but they were situated within the system and they were provided with inbuilt demand channels to feed their political demands in to the system for the decision makers. Moreover, British state is based on “ a system of beliefs, moral values and social aspirations held in common by the majority of powerful agents and institutions ...[which] specified the general direction of government’s policy’(Warde.1982,pp4-5). This value structure was necessitated and developed due to the emergence of British state as a mercantile colonial power. Therefore it may be said that British Imperialism shaped the value structure of British state, which organized itself to fascilitate demands from the colonies. REFRENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Seeley J.R. (1887 edn), The Expansion of England. Oxford. 2. Brewer A. (1989), Marxist Theories of Imperialism; A Critical Survey, Routledge, London & New York. 3. Luxemburg R. (1951), The Accumulation of Capital, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. 4. Green. E.H.H (2007)in, An Age of Transition: An Introductory Essay, Magdalen College Oxford. 5. Easton. D (1965), A systems Analysis of Political Life, New York , chaps, 3, 5 &9, esp. pp.117-23. 6. Rosenau J. (1969), Political Science in a Shrinking World, in Rosenau eds., Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems. New York. 7. Hanrieder F.W (1965), Actors Objectives and the International Systems, Journal of Politics, XXVII (February 1965), pp 117-21. 8. Cooney S. (1975), Political Demands Channels in the Processes of American and British Imperialism, World Politics, Vol.27, No.2 (Jan.1975) pp.227-255. 9. Pasha. M, 1998 Pasha, M. (1998) Colonial Political Economy: Recruitment and Underdevelopment in the Punjab. Karachi: Oxford University Press 10. Sutton, F.X.(1963). “Social Theory and Comparative Politics”, in Comparative Politics: A Reader (eds.) Harry Eckstein & David Apter.New York: Free Press. 11. Warde, A. (1982), Consensus and Beyond; Manchester, Manchester University Press. Read More