Short Stories: A Review of 'Empire' by Niall Fergueson

Niall Fergueson's history of the British Empire tells a great story. Beginning with the bucanneers and the pirates of the 17th Century, whose sole purpose was to plunder and pillage to fill their pockets with Aztec gold, all the way through to the vestiges of modern empire today.

He takes us through the various eras during which the Empire expanded, notably through the puritans colonisation of North America by men like Penn and Henry Morgan, along with the initial forays into India in the late 18th Century. While painting the contextual and historical picture for the reader Fergueson panders to the 'pop' historian in him, through focussing on such universally appealing topics as the War of Independence, the economoic impact of salvery, as well as the Indian Mutiny of 1857 and the Boer War. However his prosaic style and interesting factual tit bits allow the reader to immerse themselves into quite a long and detailed history quite easily.

His analysis focuses on the economic implications for the empire, and how the political administration reinforced the economic solidity that the multple markets of the Empire provided. One would expect nothing less from a recently elected professor at Harvard Business School, where he is now focussing on the history of economies (his most recent book is entitled 'The Ascent of Money' and is a history of the modern economic system).

His thoughts on the fundamental reasons behind the loss of the US for the British, as well as the lessons learnt subsequently through allowing colonies a modicum of self governance with the construction of local councils is fascinating reading. The best example of this is perhaps his analysis of the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny, in which Viceroy Cadogan began using the local princely states within India as 'puppet' governments that would deal with local issues, hence providing a familar face for the locals to support, while the Viceroy and the East India Company continued its economic agenda. The establishment of the Commonwealth, through which goods and services could be traded at the direct benefit of the colonies placed the first paving stone into the road to independence.

All the while he always returns to the economic - providing fascinating insight into how the Empire was administered through fiscal policy and taxation. Most notable of this was that during the peak years of Empire from 1870 - 1900, when the British Empire became the largest Empire known in history, the UK still only spend a relative 3% of its GDP on the total defence budget. Compared with todays amounts (roughly 7%) this is amazing, considering that the Empire now consists of a scattering of far flung islands that most British citizens can not even name.

He cites the reason for the breakup of the Empire as the massive economic debt that arose after the Second World War, in so far as Britain was forced to sell the Empire to repay massive loans built up in wartime. But perhaps his most interesting idea comes in his conclusion. From a fiercely pro-Empire paradigm he argues that in the modern world, the United States presents the natural follower of Britain in terms of the next great imperial state. The globalisation of business and their technological advantage, as well as military strength would facilitate this were it not for one thing - their mindset. Since the United States was born from the liberation of a people from the 'shackles' of oppression (symbolised neatly by the shackles beneath the feet of the Statue of Liberty) - the very idea that they would 'oppress' through Imperialistic intentions is anathema to them. Their brand of 'export democracy' suites their modern puritanism far better than the wanton exploitation of other countires for its own direct benefit. Get in - establish a democracy - get out.

Perhaps it might be more sensible for the United States to wake up to the fact that it is in the running as the next great Imperial power, and step up to the plate. But then the danger is that the people to whom they bring democracy, may not understand, need or want the style of government practiced in the United States, and difficult as this may be for an American to understand, it may still be true.