| | What is wrong with an empire? Historically, an empire is a UNION of nations, of kings who are clients or vassals of a greater "king of kings." It is a way to rationalize the laws - and more importantly, the commerce - of broad latitudes. I agree that some "confederations" (like Confoederatio Helvetica) might be more to our own likings. Some "cultural contexts" might suit us even more. The Greek "koine" ("union") was only a cultural milieu stretching from the Crimea to Spain, from modern Egypt to modern France where a language and religion were common. The Roman Empire was stultifying in its own context. But the Pax Romana was a time when you could travel the Middle Earth from England to Egypt from modern Iran to modern Portugal unmolested - especially if you were a Roman citizen. That they denigrated merchants and praised conquerors was an artifact of Roman (Latin) culture and not a requirement of empire.
In fact, the British Empire was perhaps the ideal global society. It was not based on mere force of arms, though arms they had. The Spanish tried that and it only bankrupted them. And it was not a purely commercial enterprise, either. The Dutch tried that. Some people made money and that's fine and good but the world does not speak Dutch as its preferred second language.
The British Empire was a cultural union based on norms perhaps too subtle for easy embodiment. Today, when India meets Pakistan in a cricket match, you do not get a dozen people killed as happens with a soccer match. Not that India and Pakistan are chums, but that cricket is a civilized game, old man, and rioting just is not done, you know.
Yes, they had capitalism, but it was deeper than that. Capitalism cannot be imposed. That is what happened in post-Soviet Russia. Free trade depends on free people with free minds. That is cultural, not political. Catholics could not vote in England until 1829. Politically, the British Empire lagged behind its own culture.
Just as the Roman Empire included kingdoms and free cities, the British Empire evidenced a range of local governments in India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the Caribbean. Lest you think that the United States was not a confederate, realize that even into the 1830s, American merchants along the East Coast kept their books in Pounds-Shillings-Pence. The USA twice entered wars on behalf of the British Empire, but that is not as salient as the fact that the President of the United States sits at a desk made from timbers of the HMS Resolute.
It is not just rule of law, though there is that. It is what the law means and how it is lived. Magna Carta is at the root, but after John other kings successfully abrogated it. Many years later, two kings were beheaded and finally Parliament hired a prince. That contract continues today.
At the local level, English law is "bench-made law." In "civil law" nations like Brazil, France, and Italy, the legislature spells out every detail of law. The court only fits the case to the literal law. Typically, those judges are approved by the state, graduates of specialized law schools beyond the juris doctorate, that train judges and award them special degrees and diplomas. Under the English system, the judges are elected by the people. Some American states require law degrees; others do not. Largely in America, anyone known to their neighbors to be wise, discrete, and honorable can be elected to be a justice of the peace, a magistrate, or judge. They fit the law to the case. Precedent is important, but justice is primary.
But it is even deeper than that. It would take a book. Churchill needed four.
I nominate the British Empire as a model for Planet Earth.
|
|
