Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire.
The "Age of Imperialism" usually refers to the Old Imperialism period starting from 1860, when major European states started colonising the other continents. The term 'Imperialism' was initially coined in the mid to late 1500s[2] to reflect the policies of countries such as Britain and France's expansion into Africa, and the Americas.
Lenin argued that capitalism necessarily induced imperialism in order to find new markets and resources, representing the last and highest stage of capitalism.[3] This theory of necessary expansion of capitalism outside the boundaries of nation-states was also shared by Rosa Luxemburg[4] and then by liberal philosopher Hannah Arendt.[5] Since then, however, Lenin's theory has been extended by Marxist scholars to be a synonym of capitalistic international trade and banking.[6]
Insofar as "imperialism" in the non-Marxist sense might be used to refer to an intellectual position, it would imply the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive good, probably combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to imperial power (see The White Man's Burden).
Imperialist policies have been criticized because they have often been used for economic exploitation of poorer countries as sources of raw materials and cheap labor. When imperialism is accompanied by overt military conquest of non-human rights abusing nations, it is also seen as a violation of freedom and human rights. Many instances of this have been recorded throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, notably among the poorer, resource-rich countries.
In recent years, there has also been a trend to view imperialism not at an economic or political level, but as a cultural issue, particularly in regard to the widespread global influence of American culture (see "cultural imperialism"). Some dispute this extension of the concept, however, on the grounds that it is highly subjective to differentiate between mutual interaction and undue influence, and also that this extension is applied selectively.
In nineteenth century Britain the word "imperialism" came to be used in a polemical fashion to deride the foreign and domestic policies of the French emperor Napoleon III. Britons, in a longstanding tradition to distinguish themselves from the European mainland, did not consider their own policies to be "imperialist". They did speak of "colonisation", the migration of people from British descent to other continents, giving rise to a “greater Britain” of English speaking peoples. Colonisation was not yet associated with the rule of non-western peoples. India, which Britain acquired from the East India Trading Company, was widely regarded as an exception.
It was a very important exception, which nonetheless gave Britain cause for embarrassment. Benjamin Disraeli's move to make Queen Victoria "Empress of India" was even criticised as a dangerous act of (continental) “imperialism”. Critics feared this would have negative repercussions on British freedom and the rule of Parliament. When the subordination of non-Western peoples by European powers resumed with greater vigor in the late 19th century, the term became commonplace among liberal and Marxist critics alike.
In the twentieth century the term "imperialism" also grew to apply to any historical or contemporary instance of a greater power acting, or being perceived to be acting, at the expense of a lesser power. Imperialism is therefore not only used to describe frank empire-building policies, such as those of the Romans, the Spanish or the British, but is also used controversially and/or disparagingly, for example by both sides in communist and anti-communist propaganda, or to describe actions of the United States since the American Presidency's acquisition of overseas territory during the Spanish-American War, or in relation to the United States' present-day position as the world's only superpower.
[edit] Leninist theory of imperialism
While Karl Marx never published a theory of imperialism, he referred to colonialism in Das Kapital as an aspect of the prehistory of the capitalist mode of production. In various articles he also analyzed British colonial rule in Ireland and India. Lenin defined imperialism as "the last and highest stage of capitalism", the era in which monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world.
Marxist theories of imperialism, or related theories such as dependency theory, focus on the economic relation between countries, rather than the formal political relationship. Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another. This Marxist usage contrasts with a popular conception of 'imperialism', as directly controlled vast colonial empires.
Lenin held that imperialism was a stage of capitalist development signalled by the dominance of monopolies and of finance, or banking, capital. Following Marx's value theory, Lenin saw monopoly capital as plagued by the law of the tendency of profit to fall, as the ratio of constant capital to variable capital increases. In Marx's theory only living labor or variable capital creates profit in the form of surplus-value. As the ratio of surplus value to the sum of constant and variable capital falls, so does the rate of profit on invested capital.
Lenin stated that imperialism allows the capitalists from developed (rich) countries to extract a superprofit from the working class of undeveloped (poor) countries. In this way capitalists could circumvent the tendency of profit rates to fall by using more labor-intensive production in colonial, or zones controlled by imperialism. These were "super-profits" in that these profit rates exceeded the average rates possible in the imperialist centers. The majority of this superprofit is kept by the capitalists themselves, but some of it is shared with the working class of the developed countries (in the form of higher standards of living, cheaper consumer goods, etc.), in order to placate that working class and avoid revolution at home.
The Soviet Union, which claimed to follow Leninism, proclaimed itself the foremost enemy of imperialism and supported many independence movements throughout the Third World. However, at the same time, it asserted its dominance over the countries of Eastern Europe. Some Marxists, including Maoists and those to the left of the Trotskyist tradition, such as Tony Cliff, claim that the Soviet Union was imperialist. The Maoists claim that this happened after Khrushchev's seizure of power in 1956, while Cliff claims it happened in the 1940s with Stalin's policies. Harry Magdoff's Age of Imperialism is a 1954 discussion of Marxism and imperialism. Globalization is generally viewed as the latest incarnation of imperialism among Marxists.
A monarchy, from the Greek μονος, "one," and αρχειν, "to rule', is a form of government that has a monarch as head of state. In most monarchies the monarch usually reigns as head of state for life; this is also true in many republics, though it is also common for the Head of State (often called the president) to be elected for a certain amount of time. There are currently 29 monarchs reigning over 44 extant sovereign monarchies in the world, the monarch of the United Kingdom being shared with 15 other independent realms. As such, this one multiple monarch reigns over vast geographic areas including the trans-continental realms of Canada and Australia.
The term monarchy is also used to refer to the people (especially the dynasty, also known as 'royalty') and institutions that make up the royal or imperial establishment, or to the realm over which the monarch reigns.
In all monarchies, the monarch serves as a symbol of continuity and statehood. The extent of a monarch's additional powers varies from monarchy to monarchy, but in constitutional monarchies they are usually only evident in times of crisis. Many monarchies are constituted by tradition or by codified law so that the monarch has little real political power, in others the monarch holds substantial power but is limited from exercising it by popular or precedental opinion, but in others the monarch holds substantial power. In some cases, the symbolism of monarchy alongside the symbolism of democracy can lead to divisions over seemingly contradictory principles of sovereignty.
Monarchy is one of the oldest forms of government, with echoes in the leadership of tribal chiefs. Many monarchs claimed to rule by divine right or at least by divine grace, ruling either by the will of the god(s) or as gods themselves. In some early systems the monarch was overthrown or sacrificed when it became apparent that divine sanction had been withdrawn. Monarchs might be chosen by election, succession, or conquest.
Since 1800, many of the world's monarchies have been abolished and have been replaced by republics, or become parliamentary democracies. These transitions have frequently resulted in a loss, not a gain, in popular liberty, as may be seen in the histories of the French and Russian Revolutions, and the overthrow of the monarchies in Brazil, Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia etc. Democratic countries which retain a monarchy, by definition, limit the monarch's power, with most having become constitutional monarchies. In England, this process began with the Magna Carta of 1215, although it did not reach democratic proportions until after the Glorious Revolution in 1689. In the modern media age, however, popular monarchs can, independently of their formal role within the constitutional framework, through popularity and various contacts, acquire considerable influence via public opinion or political contacts. They still generally retain the right to be consulted by the executive, and thus the theory is the converse of the practice: the Monarch advises the Government.
Among the few states that retain a rather absolute monarchy are Vatican City, Swaziland, Brunei, Bhutan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In Jordan and Morocco, the monarch also retains considerable power. There are also recent (2003) developments in Liechtenstein, wherein the regnant prince was given the constitutional power to dismiss the government at will. Nepal had several swings between a constitutional role and direct rule related to the Maoist rebel movement and the palace killings by a suicidal crown prince.
Contents
[show]
* 1 Types of Monarchy
* 2 Succession
* 3 Titles as Political Statements
* 4 Demise of monarchies
* 5 Unusual Monarchies
* 6 Monarchy vs Oligarchy
* 7 Current monarchies of the world
* 8 Current subnational traditional monarchies
* 9 See also
o 9.1 Specific monarchies
* 10 Sources, References and External links
[edit] Types of Monarchy
In an absolute monarchy, the monarch has absolute power over every aspect of the state, if not of social life in general, and a constitution may be granted or withdrawn, while a constitutional monarch is subject to it as well as any citizen (though it may grant him such privileges as inviolability). Modern versions tend to survive only in societies with sufficient technology to allow the concentration and organization of power, but not to allow education and rapid communication. The economic structure of such monarchies is often of concentrated wealth, with the majority of the population living either as agricultural serfs, or, as in Gulf monarchies, a paternalistic model showering benefits on the citizens (while politically they may remain subjects) and importing cheap foreign labor.
An elected monarchy was popular in various states of Northern Europe even up until the Middle Ages. When Charlemagne was a child, his father was elected king of the Franks. Wilhelm was elected German emperor in 1871. Stanislaw of Poland was an elected king. Frederik of Sweden was an elected king. The tradition of an elected monarchy is very ancient and still exists today in the office of the Pope.
In Antiquity, there were various traditions of elected monarchs, usually rendered as kings, especially in not fully sedentary societies such as the Germanic tribes before they established sedentary kingdom in territories of the (former) Roman empire. Often there was a mix of conflicting principles, the ruling house tending to reserve succession for itself, with sometimes a broader nobility rivalling it; actual succession often depended on popular assent and/or the support of the armed forces, which could take their role of kingmaker as far as deposing an incompetent or criminal ruler, or even pure mutiny to seize the throne. The Hellenistic kings of Macedon and of Epirus were elected by the army (a body that was very close in composition to the ecclesia of democracies, the council of all free citizens; military service was often linked with citizenship) among the male member of the royal house. In Macedon this tradition continued until the kingdom was dissolved by the Romans after the Third Macedonian War.
Most of today's hereditary monarchs serve as more or less of a figurehead, with few powers, except for ceremonial duties. Many are also a constitutional monarchs and can dissolve parliament and call for new elections (usually at the request of the prime minister). They cannot however, actually create legislation, nor wield power in the unlimited and often abusive manner of ancient monarchies.
In some ancient hereditary monarchies, power often resided with the military, as often has been the case in Thailand and Japan (where its (eventually hereditary) chief, the Shogun, developed into a de facto monarch nominally under the Emperor), with an (at least) nominally 'primeministerial' office (separate Head of government), which may tend to become hereditary itself, in the Hindu kingdom of Nepal even formally styled a hereditary Maharaja. In Fascist Italy a monarchy coexisted with a fascist party for longer than such co-existences occurred in Romania, Hungary or Greece. Spain under Francisco Franco was officially a monarchy even though there was no Monarch on the throne; upon his death, Franco was succeeded as Head of state by the Bourbon heir to the throne, King Juan Carlos.
There have also been situations in which a dictator proclaimed himself monarch of a previous republic, thus starting a self-proclaimed monarchy with no historical ties to a previous dynasty. The most famous example of this was general Napoleon Bonaparte who crowned himself first Emperor of the French after legally assuming political control of the French Republic (which in his lifetime has succeeded to the absolutist kingdom) as First Consul for life; a blatant imitation of his empire was that of dictator Bokassa I in the very poor Central African Empire. Also, Yuan Shikai crowned himself emperor of the short-lived "Empire of China", a few years after the Republic of China was founded.
On several occasions throughout history, the same person has served as monarch of separate independent states, in a situation known as a personal union. An empire was traditionally ruled by a monarchy whose leader may have been known by different titles in his different realms. Several former colonies of the British Empire, such as Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand etc., are now independent states or kingdoms that continue to recognize the British Monarch as their sovereign head of state, though with a distinctive title in each nation (King/Queen of Canada, Jamaica, and so forth); these countries, including the UK, are known as Commonwealth Realms. In other cases, such as England and Scotland, a personal union was the precursor to a merger of the states.
Some republics can be called 'virtual monarchies' as they appear to have introduced de facto inheritance for the head of state, usually establishing a 'dynasty' by making his son (informally) designated heir, without constitutionally declaring themselves monarchies. These nations may be republics in theory, but monarchies in practice. The 'Roman Empire' in Latin existed only in the territorial sense, legally it was always a republic, theoretically the Principate was not hereditary monarchy, and even the Byzantine Empire had republican features. In the twentieth century de facto monarchies existed in Nicaragua and Haiti. Today, North Korea and Syria have been called de facto monarchies; however, one father-son succession without a constitutional mechanism is more an appearance than an actual de facto monarchy, the next succession may just as well be determined otherwise by the real kingmakers (a dead dictator ceases to dictate) and democratic republics too have produced de facto successions -albeit often not along strict lines such as primogeniture- and even three or more generation 'dynasties' (as India's Gandhi family), except that these only rule when their party is in power. See also family dictatorship.
Although in theory a monarch is the sovereign of a state, historical developments often produced more complicated realities: when a state loses its true sovereignty, while internally retaining its monarchic constitution, its monarchy will often become similarly dependent on the greater power, e.g. as a feudal vassal under a suzerain, or in the colonial era become redefined as an actor in indirect rule, under a paramount power (such as each princely state in the British raj).
[edit] Succession
The rules for selection of monarchs varies from country to country. In constitutional monarchies the rule of succession is generally embodied in a law passed by a representative body, such as a parliament.
Elective monarchies, distinguished by the monarchs being appointed for life, have in most cases been succeeded by hereditary monarchies, but both secular sovereign nation cases at present - those of Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates - are 20th-century creations. In the hereditary system, the position of monarch involves inheritance according to an order of succession, usually within one royal family tracing its origin back to a historical dynasty or bloodline. In some cases the ruling family may claim to hold authority by virtue of God's choosing, as reflected in the style-phrase by the Grace of God, or other religion-based authority.
The order of succession in most European monarchical states of the 21st century is by primogeniture, meaning the eldest son of the monarch is first in line, followed by his male, then female siblings in order of age. In earlier times, the succession was often unclear and this led to a number of wars. Currently, there is some controversy over the succession laws of some monarchies in the European Union (EU), such as that of the United Kingdom (UK) or the Scandinavian monarchies, which require their monarch to be of a certain faith (in the UK under the Act of Settlement 1701). This has been challenged as violating EU rules that prohibit religious disqualification for positions of state authority.
Successions in dependent states were often subject to the assent of the dominant power, which then often reserves the right to dethrone (and replace) a 'disloyal' incumbent.
[edit] Titles as Political Statements
Official styles and titles of monarchs often reflect the ideals of the governments they represent and actual historical ties or claims to lands no longer under their administration.
The Protestant Successors to Henry VIII of England have all retained the 'Defender of the Faith' originally granted by the Pope to Henry VIII before the 'annulment crises'.
Queen Elizabeth II is 'by the Grace of God, Queen' in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – though her Style in most of her other Realms does not include this phrase. During Spain's transition to a constitutional monarchy under Isabella II, her Style was changed from the 'Long Form' which included 'by the Grace of God' and some 20 states to "By divine grace and the constitution, queen of the Spains".
The Kings and Queens of England and the United Kingdom retained 'King of France' until the Ireland was added to the United Kingdom in 1801 during the reign of HM King George III. The Kings and Queens of Spain retained a long list of Kingdoms, that didn't include 'Spain' until Isabella II in 1837. The Council of Ministers (1987) authorized HM Juan Carlos I , King of Spain, to also use 'historical titles' presumably including 'King of Jerusalem'.
[edit] Demise of monarchies
Monarchies can come to an end in several ways. There may be a revolution in which the monarchy is overthrown; or, as in Italy, by constitutional referendum electorate decides to form a republic. In some cases, as with England and Spain, the monarchy has been overthrown and later restored. After the abdication of Napoleon I, which ended the First Empire, the French restored the royal Bourbon dynasty which had been abolished by the republic within which Napoleon had established the Empire. At the same time, his emperorship was 'revived' outside France, as a 'golden cage' principality was created for him on the island of Elba, so in a sense the empire was succeeded by a kingdom and an emperor without an empire.
Dependent monarchies have been abolished by their dominant power, often for the purposes of being fully annexed, split or merged with another. In Uganda, for example, local tribal monarchies were abolished when the country became a unitary state.
The most recent monarchy to be abolished was the Commonwealth realm monarchy of Mauritius in 1992. In 1999 Australians voted to keep their status as a monarchy under Queen Elizabeth II.
An international republican movement is challenging many of the 29 remaining monarchies, particularly in the Anglosphere.
Countries may regard themselves as monarchies even without an actual monarch on the 'vacant' throne, as Spain did from 1947 to 1975, and Hungary from 1920 to 1944.
A person who claims to be the legitimate heir to the throne of a deposed (or in the royalist view suspended) monarchy is called a pretender, but that term also applies to a rival claimant of a filled throne, such as the several Russians who claimed to be a Tsar simultaneously.