Part 5 proposes to account for the decline and fall of European empires.
Given the obstacles to colonial autonomy noted in earlier chapters, it is not obvious why independence movements succeeded. Why were any new states formed, let alone more than a hundred?1 A theory of decolonization should also explain why new-state formation was so heavily concentrated in two relatively brief time periods.
What factors stimulated the large number of successful breakaway movements in phases 2 and 5? Other questions refer to differences between decolonization phases. Why was the initial round of independence movements led almost exclusively by settlers while comparable movements by non-Europeans did not arise until much later? Why did metropoles in phase 2 so frequently fight to hold on, while the typical phase 5 pattern was a peacefully negotiated transfer of power?A theory of European imperialism must use evidence culled from several centuries. It is bound to be more general, complex, and inclusive of a variety of causal factors than a theory of decolonization, which must account for the compression of independence movements into phases 2 and 5 and the years immediately preceding these phases. A theory of imperialism focuses attention on characteristics of Europe and the world that persisted over time. It is the continuity of these features that permits recurring expansionist activities. In contrast, a theory of decolonization draws attention to conditions in which the world changed quickly—that is, to discontinuities. The implication is that overseas empires rose because of deep-seated structural and cultural attributes, whereas their fall was dependent on catalytic, unpredictable, contingent events.
Is it reasonable, however, to posit a theory of decline comprehensive enough to apply to trends in phases 2 and 5? To explain changes in the size of empires one should concentrate on those areas in which key initiatives for change were concentrated.
With respect to imperialism this means focusing on one compact region, Europe. This book emphasizes developments in European political history, economics, and culture even as it argues that Eurocentrism alone is insufficient and misleading. To explain contraction one must focus on the principal sources of pressure to change the status quo, namely, territories that gained independence. The number of independent countries in each phase greatly exceeded the number of metropoles. New states were dispersed throughout the world. Differences among them—in size, population, demographic complexity, natural resources—were far greater than differences among metropoles. Moreover, chapters 4 and 7 identified important differences between the decolonization phases. Among these were the geographically more confined range of phase 2, contrasts between settler and nonEuropean political elites, and a far more complex international system in phase 5 that included international organizations. Chapter 13 further emphasized objective and subjective differences between settler communities and non-European populations. Taking all these kinds of variation into account, one could understandably decide to write off the search for a general theory of decolonization.Part 5 argues, to the contrary, that such a theory can be devised, as long as one bears in mind that what is being explained is broad historical patterns and not specific events. Back of differences between phases are underlying similarities in the nature of European colonialism which, over time, contributed to its demise. It is not so much the overextension of empire as the contradictions of empire that eventually destabilized this system of global dominance. The more these contradictions were noticed by colonial residents, and the more troubled residents became because of what they noticed, the more vulnerable to collapse the system became.
Back of differences between non-Europeans and settlers were factors that led them to become more similar over time.
The previous chapter argued that nonEuropeans and settlers differed not only racially and culturally but also in the key factor blocking successful demands for autonomy. This chapter shows that as nonEuropeans raised their capacity to control colonial public sector institutions, and as settlers demonstrated a greater will to press for independence, the two groups converged in having the level of capacity and will needed effectively to challenge their rulers.A crucial question is how decolonization phases begin, given the forces at work to maintain imperial control. An examination of developments in bna in late phase 1 and India in phase 4 reveals that the precedent-setters of phases 2 and 5 were similar in important ways. Settlers in the bna colonies and Indians in India had unusually high levels of institutional leverage in the public sector. Moreover, mutually beneficial relations developed between political leaders and prominent business figures that became in effect cross-sector alliances. Just as these alliances were empowering to Europeans in the drive for expansion, so they were to colonial residents in the drive for autonomy. Precisely because bna and India differ in so many ways—
hemisphere, decolonization phase, the racial composition of their elites, and so forth—one would not expect to find these sectoral similarities. That they are there lends support to the argument that cross-sector alliances are conducive to the initiation of decolonization waves.
Chapter 15 shifts attention to the international scene, pointing out additional similarities between phases 2 and 5. Hegemonic wars shifted power relations within empires and produced high levels of uncertainty and expectation on all sides concerning the character of imperial relations after wars ended. However, it was not wars themselves but political crises immediately following them that triggered independence movements. These crises had a remarkably similar form, causing leaders in otherwise very different colonies to share the belief that they and their people had been betrayed by the metropole. With the sense of betrayal came a rapid escalation in the popular demand for separation from the betrayer. Once the independence precedent was set, international demonstration effects took over, accounting for the rapidity with which a large number of new states was formed. Over time the factors driving decolonization shifted from the domestic politics of specific colonies to international events beyond the control of any one colony or metropole.