Defining imperialism

Is there a Saudi imperialism? No, there is not. Still, the term ‘Saudi imperialism’ is fast creeping into left-liberal narratives. Drawing our attention to ‘Saudi imperialism’, such narratives refer to the increasing Saudi influence in Pakistan. As a matter of fact, Saudi penetration of Pakistani politics, economy, and culture is a least-discussed but largely accepted fact. Also, Saudi Arabia (along with other Gulf sheikhdoms) casts its influence not merely over Pakistan but a host of other Muslim countries.

For instance, one finds similar trends in Egypt, Bangladesh and Jordan. Since the outbreak of the Arab spring, Riyadh has assumed an increasingly important role. While Saudi Arabia played Big Brother in the Gulf – containing the revolution in Bahrain and mediating change in Yemen – it is patronising Islamists in Tunisia, Syria and Egypt. Since intervention and domination are two overriding characteristics of imperialism, one often also hears terms like ‘Punjabi imperialism’ in Pakistan.

This is because, to quote David Harvey, “Imperialism is a word that trips easily off the tongue.” But attempts at defining and describing imperialism often run into difficulties. Liberals have frequently reduced imperialism to domination and intervention. While domination is implicit in it, imperialism cannot be reduced to dominance or intervention alone. For instance, Punjab’s oppression and exploitation of Balochistan is based on nationalism. Similarly, Ethiopian intervention in Somalia or the Sinhalese domination of Tamils do not make Ethiopia or Sri Lanka imperialist countries. In all such cases, we are dealing with national questions even if domination, exploitation and brutal oppression feature in every instance.

Similarly, another misconception – sometime deliberately projected by liberals and post-modernists – is either to reduce imperialism to empire or present empire and imperialism as essentially concomitant features. In other words, you cannot have empire (that lords over colonies) without imperialism and imperialism without empire. Even scholars such as Edward Said run into trouble when defining imperialism.

For instance, in his seminal work Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said describes imperialism as a practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory; ‘colonialism’, which is almost always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territories. In his support, Said quotes Michael Doyle: “Empire is a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society. It can be achieved by force, by political collaboration, by economic, social, or cultural dependence. Imperialism is simply the process or policy of establishing or maintaining an empire.” While Doyle’s definition is flawed in view of contemporary imperialism, whereby colonialism has ended (Israel being the only exception), Said himself contradicts himself in the same breath. Having quoted Doyle, he asserts: “In our time, direct colonialism has largely ended; imperialism…lingers where it has always been, in a kind of general cultural sphere as well as in specific political, ideological, economic, and social practice.” Similarly, John Tomlinson describes imperialism as “a specific form of domination…associated with ‘empire’. “

However, if imperialism lingers on, why has colonialism ended? Said does not explain this. Likewise, the US is an imperialist country but has no formal empire. And if domination is the defining characteristic, as Tomlinson writes, one cannot differentiate between national oppression and imperial exploitation.

Also, historical experiences do not fit into this characterisation. For instance, imperial exploitation of Latin America by England in the 19th century even when Latin American countries had attained formal political liberation is a case in point. Likewise, if empire and imperialism are concomitant, should the Roman, Mongol and Ottoman empires also qualify as imperialisms? Such problems remain unsolved in non-Marxist definitions of imperialism. These definitions, even when coined by brilliant theoreticians like Edward Said, remain stuck in the apparent characteristics attributed to imperialism and are, hence, always contradictory.

This writer thinks that a sound understanding of imperialism is only offered by Marxist tradition. In the first place, imperialism can neither be understood nor properly defined if it is delinked from capitalism. In the famous words of Lenin, it is always the “latest stage of capitalism.” We must acknowledge that imperialism is a metamorphosing phenomenon. As capitalism assumes new forms, imperialism also adapts to these new forms.

Hence, for classical Marxists – Lenin, Rosa Luxemberg, Rudolf Hilferding, Nikolai Bukharin, Karl Kautsky, etc – imperialism (to quote Anthony Brewer), meant “primarily, rivalry between major capitalist countries, rivalry expressed in conflict over territory, taking political and military as well as economic forms, and leading ultimately to inter-imperialist war”; in addition to assigning “a central role to the evolution of the economic system.” All agreed that imperialism must be explained in terms of the development of capitalism. (Marx himself did not propound any theory of imperialism.)

The dominance of stronger countries over weaker nations was certainly implicit even in classical conceptions. But the focus at the turn of the twentieth century was on the struggle for dominance among the imperial powers. As conjunctural analysis, emphasis on inter-imperial rivalry proved intuitive since the inter-imperial rivalry led to two world wars. However, after World War II, imperialism emerged with new characteristics. Delineated by the United States, post-war imperialism did not possess colonies. And it did not have any imperial rivals. However, a unique situation emerged whereby the USSR, as capitalism’s nemesis, became a rival. The world order bifurcated into a bipolar system. While the USSR, at the head of the post-capitalist Comecon countries, constituted one pole, the US emerged as the undisputed leader of the other pole.

With the disintegration of the USSR the world system became unipolar. From multipolarity to unipolarity, by way of a bipolar interregnum, imperialism has proved a recurrent phenomenon. This phenomenon, in the words of Simon Bromley, should be “understood as a set of coercive power relations established between different parts of the world economy, such that metropolitan benefitted at the expense of periphery,” involving the use of force (colonialism) as well as indirect control (the post-colonial period). However, “the central mechanisms of imperialism were economic and involved the ability of the dominant capitalist powers to manipulate market imperatives to their advantage.” To quote British Marxist critic Alex Callinicos, “The theory of imperialism is a way of understanding capitalism in its heartlands – what is sometimes called the core of the ‘world’ system.” Capitalism is a system whereby the producer (worker) does not own the means of production (tools, land, factory, mines). This aspect was missing in the case of old empires.

In short: empire (formal, or informal) + capitalist exploitation = imperialism. If situated in the world system, Saudi Arabia appears as a client US state. It is rich. But, on the one hand, it is dependent upon US protection – militarily, technologically, politically, and educationally. On the other hand, a market for western consumer goods (and arms), Saudi Arabia is a source of extraction, not a western competitor in any sense. But like many rich countries, it invests its petrodollars to secure its domestic and regional interests. However, it does not imply that Saudi intervention in Pakistan (or oppression in Balochistan) is less objectionable than imperialist aggression. But by correctly characterising their enemies, oppressed peoples are better placed to build appropriate alliances.

The writer is a freelance contributor.Email: mfsulehria@hotmail.com