Question: What is Burke's idea of an empire and its government? Comment on it.
Or, Reproduce Burke's idea of an empire as distinguished from a single state or kingdom.
Or, Can Burke be called an imperialist? Illustrate your answer with reference to the text.
Or, In what sense and to what extent may Burke be called an imperialist?
Or, What idea regarding Burke's imperial policy and conception of an empire can you form from the "Speech on Conciliation with America"?
Or, "I am mistaken in my idea of an empire, as distinguished from a single state or kingdom." How does Burke develop this distinction in his "Speech on Conciliation with America"?
Answer: Burke lived in an age characterized by colonies and colonial expansion. His idea of an empire was formulated at a time when the British colonial empire was fast expanding. Because Burke nurtured a humanitarian heart and he possessed a pragmatic outlook, the determining principle of his idea of an imperial empire was justice and equity. He believed, unlike a typical colonizer, not in subjugation and exploitation but in protection - protection of what he calls "the chartered rights of man".
Burke's vision of an empire was that of a great disjointed empire', which had little in common with the British Empire that was emerging and was to be consolidated in the nineteenth century. His idea of an empire is that it is an aggregate of many states, where one state is dominant in the sense that it exercises the general power of superintendence. He says in his "Speech on Conciliation with America":
"Perhaps, Sir, I am mistaken in my idea of an empire, as distinguished from a single state or kingdom. But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic."
Thus, in Burke's idea of empire, the supervising state is greater in stature and the other states hold a subordinate place altogether. In an empire, the highest authority may be a monarch as in the case of England or a presiding republic.
The basis of the relationship between the supervising authority and the subordinate parts is privileges and exemptions. Only an extremely fine line exists between the authority of the centre and the rights of the colonies. In order to retain the unity of the empire the central authority must recognize the privileges of the subordinate states. The more extensive the empire, the greater the local privileges of the different units. These rights and privileges are so ingrained that they cannot be taken away from the states unless they are reduced to a state of slavery. Burke says:
“It does, in such constitutions, frequently happen--and nothing but the dismal, cold, dead uniformity of servitude can prevent its happening-that the subordinate parts have many local privileges and immunities. Between these privileges and the supreme common authority the line may be extremely nice."
Burke admits that the local privileges are exceptions to a certain general condition of law; but, he observes, these are not denials of authority. In Burke's opinion the very term 'privilege' implies a superior power because a privilege is demanded only by a superior person or superior power. He states:
"But though every privilege is an exemption, in the case, from the ordinary exercise of the supreme authority, it is no denial of it. The claim of a privilege seems rather, to imply a superior power; for to talk of the privileges of a state or of a person who has no superior is hardly any better than speaking nonsense."
Burke dismisses the idea that a demand for a privilege is a challenge to authority because the very demand is a negation of the challenge. The claiming of a privilege in any particular respect is certainly not a wholesale denial of the authority of the presiding state.
To Burke, an empire is "a great political union of communities". The unity and stability of this great union, which Burke calls empire, depend not upon the stringent application of laws and force but on the extension of equal rights and privileges. The rights and privileges are the ties that bind the colonies and the superior authority. So, if the colonies are granted equal rights and privileges, the unity of the empire is preserved. He observes:
"These are ties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government,--they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing, and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation, the cement is gone the cohesion is loosened--and everything hastens to decay and dissolution."
Disintegration occurs when the central authority looks upon the colonies with suspicion. The solidarity of the empire depends on administering the subordinate parts with fairness and equal justice principles of equity and honesty. The 'force and vigour' of the supervising authority in the centre is "derived from a prudent relaxation in all his borders". He comments that-
"In large bodies, the circulation of power must be less vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it."
Burke calls the relaxed control of the centre "the eternal law of extensive and detached empire". Burke calls for 'magnanimity' in the management of an empire. He concludes -
"Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom; and a great empire and little minds go ill together."
We see that Burke's idea of an empire is distinguished from a single state or kingdom. To him, a single state or kingdom is a unit of an empire. A state is a people organized for law within a definite territory. Without sovereignty, there cannot be any state properly so-called. Thus viewed, Burke's empire cannot be an aggregate of sovereign units; his empire is akin to a commonwealth of nations.
From the above discussion, it can be deduced that Burke is not an imperialist in the traditional sense of the term. The term 'imperialism' refers to the act of capturing others' nations by force and ruling those subsequently by means of oppression and suppression and subjugation. Imperialism is closely associated with the terms like the oppressor and the oppressed; the ruler and the ruled. But, Burke's idea of an empire stands in stark contrast with the conception of an imperialistic government. In his vision of empire, the centre plays the role of supervisory power over the components units. His view of empire is conceived on the principle of compromise, justice, fair play, and morality. What holds the empire together is the magnanimity on the part of the supervising authority. Viewed from this angle, we cannot label Burke as an 'imperialist'. However, if Burke is labelled as an 'imperialist', he is so only in a generous sense of the term. He can be said an imperialist only because he is an advocate of empire. But, he wants an empire not for mean and malicious delight, but for mutual strength and growth. He does not have the vanity of the haughty ruler and detests gains through coercion and fraud. His idea of imperialism is liberal and humanistic in nature.
Burke's model of the empire was the Roman one. His personal model was Cicero. Like Cicero, Burke saw it as his duty to protect the rights of the dependent peoples throughout the empire. Again like Cicero, Burke saw this duty as an obligation enforced by divine law. However dubious its origins might be, he believed that a British empire was ordained by God. 'All power is of God,' and 'conquest. . . is a more immediate designation of the hand of God.' In his "Speech on Fox's East India Bill” Burke comments that there were great difficulties to "our attempting to govern India at all. But there we are; there we are placed by the Sovereign Disposer: and we must do the best we can in our situation. The situation of man is the preceptor of his duty." Even if the British had acquired their superiority by 'fraud or force, or whether by a mixture of both', duties inescapably followed.
0 মন্তব্যসমূহ