International Relations is a fascinating subject - so abstract, yet clearly visible in the world around us, in much the same way as the laws of physics.

I took this opportunity to examine a theme which appears in a lot of my work: Colonisation, decolonisation, and what lies in-between.

Introduction

Colonisation, when interpreted as the mere act of taking over already-inhabited territory for the gains of one’s own nation, could be seen as a black-and-white process – land is either colonised and controlled by another state, or it is not. So when powerful states leave their colonies behind, be it by mutual agreement or not, one might say that these colonies return to being uncolonised, and that they are now independent. However, interpreting colonisation in this way would turning a blind eye to the lasting marks it leaves on colonies and their role within international politics. The ties that colonies have with the great powers of international relations are best described as dysfunctional, having been forged at a time when their identities were defined by those who colonised them.

Hypothesis

My hypothesis is that colonisation left colonies dependent on their colonisers, and that this power imbalance carried through from the era of colonialism onto postcolonialism, in which the international political system has been used to continue to repress colonies. I argue that there is a great need for decolonisation in order for colonies to reclaim their national identities and independence, and reassert their place in the international order.

Definitions

As put by Lesinski (2007: 5), “colonialism (a practice)” is “a product of imperialism (an ideology).” Colonialism, or colonisation, is not a reason in and of itself; rather it is an act, a process, with reasons and consequences of its own. While these words may bring to mind images of European explorers staking a claim on far-flung lands, Krishna (2014: 358) explains that colonialism ought not to focus simply on the principles of domination and possession; instead it should be regarded as a relationship which “produces the identity and content of both colonizer and colonized.”

If colonialism refers to the creation of such a relationship, postcolonialism could be seen as the continuation of the same dynamics between coloniser and colonised at a time when the international political system has changed drastically and colonialism is now a thing of the past (Rutazibwa and Shilliam 2018: 1). Even though “post-” implies moving on and detachment, colonies remain tied to their colonisers during the postcolonial era through aspects such as language and trade (Leezenberg and de Vries 2019: 331).

Decolonisation is framed as a detoxification, an aim to purify colonies and to undo the effects of colonialism and postcolonialism. Scholars call for “de-linking” from Western thinking, “unlearning” the values and mechanisms that have been pushed upon other cultures, and working towards “decolonising the mind” (Leezenberg and de Vries 2019: 342-343, Krishna 2009, cited in Krishna 2014: 358, Thiong’o 1986, cited in Rutazibwa and Shilliam 2018: 6).

Literature review

When analysing the effects of colonialism on colonies, scholars often utilise the dependency theory. As the name suggests, the dependency theory proposes that colonies become dependent on their colonisers in various ways – politically, economically, culturally and so forth (Madikiza and Bornman 2007: 25). This dependence is sparked when the colonisers introduce their values and mechanisms to the colonies, but it does not end once formal independence is granted – instead, colonies find themselves trapped in “former colonial power structures” (Ayish 2005, cited in Madikiza and Bornman 2007: 24-25).

While the dependency theory begins at the same point that colonialism does, the modernisation theory is rooted in postcolonialism. This theory supposes that colonies, once they have gained independence, would develop and modernise in order to be in line with the great Western powers (Madikiza and Bornman 2007: 23). Western ideals are framed as the one and only desirable future for colonies (Dussel 1993: 68, cited in Rojas 2016: 375).

The place of colonies within the international order is often explained by Wallerstein’s world systems theory. Although this theory was originally used to represent the exchange of labour, materials and goods between core and periphery (and semi-periphery) states, it has been extended to include other exchanges such as conflict, exchanges of culture and of information (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1993, cited in Madikiza and Bornman 2007: 28). According to Lesinski (2007: 8), “every nation’s future is shaped solely by its historical position in the world system.”

Colonialism and dependency

I will begin by using the dependency theory to explain how colonialism has left its mark on colonies, and has trapped them into a corner as international politics have progressed. “Dependistas” (a term used by Madikiza and Bornman [2007]) claim that as colonisers introduce their culture, technology, trade and the likes to their colonies, the colonies will latch on to these and find it difficult to revert to a “native” way of life. What may start out as simple trading between native peoples and settlers - as was seen in New Zealand - can morph into not just a material dependence, but a dependence on the coloniser for a stable economy, security, diplomacy, and modernisation. Indeed, McKinnon (2013: 2, 8) speaks of New Zealand’s diplomatic relations as having belonged to Britain, and of the New Zealand population as having been comfortable under the “order, stability and progress” of Britain’s control.

Even once colonies become “independent,” they remain, in some ways, dependent on their coloniser. For example, the trade patterns established during colonial rule may remain, with colonies often supplying labour and raw materials to their colonisers, and in return being bombarded with products from their colonisers which encourage them to assimilate to the Western way of life (Lesinski 2007: 6, Madikiza and Bornman 2007: 25). A colony’s diplomatic relations may remain largely unchanged after the withdrawal of their coloniser, perhaps due to the failure of the international community to see them through any lens other than “colony of X.” Therefore it would seem that this dependency is a characteristic of a colony’s place in the world system – they are most likely to be a periphery state, and unlikely to be able to change their place in the system due to the enduring label of “colony.”

Postcolonialism and modernisation

Now I will explain how postcolonialism functions as an extension of colonialism, a way for the same promotion of Western values and repression of all others to masquerade under the guise of modern international politics. Many mechanisms have been employed by Western states to continue controlling colonies economically, such as the enforcement of neoliberalism and the rapid advancement of globalisation (Shariff and Littig 2002: 43-44). While these principles may seem at first unrelated to the idea of postcolonialism, it is clear that the same power imbalance is at play – neoliberalism and globalisation both have their roots in Western ideals, with the aim of continuing the domination and promotion of these ideals (Shariff and Littig 2002: 43-44). According to the modernisation theory, it is only right that the colonies should want to reach the same level of trade and consumerism as their colonisers have – anything less would lead to them being labelled “underdeveloped” (Leezenberg and de Vries 2019: 344-345).

Continuing to apply the modernisation theory, it is clear that postcolonialism has also allowed the great powers to assert “soft” power over their colonies. Western values, traditions and expectations are constantly extending their reach thanks to the increasing accessibility and capability of technology. The “importation” of media products – social media content, films, websites, and so on – has resulted in what Madikiza and Bornman (2007: 25) call an “electronic invasion.” The Western narrative is able to infiltrate places at a speed and range that could not have been imagined during the era of colonialism. As a result, the narratives of native peoples are being drowned out, with cultural homogenisation threatening to make Western culture the “dominant voice” globally (Madikiza and Bornman (2007: 39). Perhaps, with the spread and normalisation of Western values, we will also see cultural homogenisation occur within international politics. A time may arrive when all issues will be a question of “is this acceptable in Western culture?”, with no effort made to approach them from any other point of view.

Decolonisation and the world system

So, where to from here? Has this path of colonialism and postcolonialism arrived at a dead end, or is there light at the end of the tunnel for disillusioned colonies? Decolonisation could provide a solution, in the form of these colonies reimagining their identities and what they are capable of achieving within the world system. Granted, this cannot take place overnight – decolonisation is a slow, gradual process; a process which Stam and Shohat (2012: 61) refer to as the “‘external’ revolt against Western domination.”

If colonies are able to withdraw themselves from the shackles of colonialism and postcolonialism – exhaustive trade agreements, media over-reliance, lack of diplomatic relations, et cetera – they may then find the space necessary to reconstruct their own identities. Prioritising the languages, traditions, world views and goals of native peoples are all ways in which colonies could regain touch with what might have been sans colonisation. It is important to note that this shift in focus does not constitute, as put by Rutazibwa and Shilliam (2018: 353), “a retreat from the political” – instead, it should be seen as a revision of the political.

Then, if colonies are successful in re-establishing their identities, it should follow that their importance within the world system be re-evaluated. Though scholars such as Lesinski (2007) believe that the world system cannot be reconfigured, I argue that one of the only ways in which we can attempt to fix the power imbalance between colonisers and colonies is by acknowledging that colonies are more than their label. After all, if we return to the definition of colonialism as a relationship between coloniser and colonised (Krishna: 2014: 358), that relationship is not dissimilar to the relationship between periphery and core states in that both sides of the relationship give and receive, while there continues to be a power imbalance. Scholars such as Rojas (2016) argue that Western states need to turn their attention to the colonies, not just in the search for resources or labour, but for the sharing of knowledge and values that may provide the solutions to the modern problems – climate change, throwaway culture, the insatiable desire for “progress”, to name a few - which are threatening the sustainability of the Western lifestyle.

Conclusion

It is clear that colonisation is a long-lasting and multifaceted process which has affected colonies on many levels and continues to do so via postcolonialism. Colonialism has infiltrated the values and mechanisms of the international political system, making it difficult for colonies to prove themselves as anything other than just that: colonies. I have found that the dependency theory, modernisation theory and the world systems theory can all be applied to show how colonies are being repressed. I have also found that decolonisation, which could be seen as a rejection of what propels these theories – of being dependent, of requiring modernisation, and of being stuck in the periphery of the world system – could be beneficial not only for colonies themselves, but for the rest of the international community too. Allowing other worldviews to take their place alongside the Western experience is a sorely-needed change in international relations – accepting that they have much to teach the West, and that the West has much to learn.

References