Liberalism as the basis of the driving force of society

One of the most striking phenomena of history is how a small island state, Great Britain, located on the periphery of Europe, managed to become the greatest empire in the world. By the time it began to take shape as an empire (the formation of the "First British Empire" took place in 1583-1783, and the "Second British Empire" in 1783-1815), there were already great powers: Portugal, Spain, France and the Ottoman Empire. Despite fierce competition and struggle, it managed to gain control over 25% of the earth's surface, where a third of the world's population lived. But this phenomenon is not limited to this. Unlike other powers, after decolonization and the collapse of the "Second Empire" (1945-1997), Great Britain itself and its former colonies – the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. – became one of the most powerful and economically developed countries in the world. Moreover, Britain, the USA, and Canada are among the Big Seven (English Group of Seven — "Group of Seven", G7), which coordinates the main approaches to solving political and economic issues affecting the interests of the whole world.  However, at the same time, Great Britain managed to maintain very harmonious relations with its former colonies, which cannot be said about other named empires. They all have very strained and sometimes even hostile relations with their former dominions.

This phenomenon has been studied by both Russian and Western researchers. Among them, I would like to single out V.V.Vysokov, K.A.Sozinov, E.Y.Chemyakin, O.O.Lisenkov and Niall Campbell Douglas Ferguson, whose views we will consider in the context of today's realities of our region. Their research contains a lot of interesting and significant provisions that can be useful to our young state when making important decisions on the development of various spheres of the country.

The development of the Kingdom of England was facilitated by the profound social transformation that took place in England in the 16th century. Then the extinct aristocracy began to be chosen from the minor gentry (small-scale nobility, occupying an intermediate position between peers and yeomen), and from the lower classes. The criterion for selection was not origin, as before, but talent, education, and the ability to benefit the country. To what extent this was an innovative decision, we can judge by the fact that even today in most countries of the former USSR, when appointing to senior government positions and electing members of parliament, these criteria are not adhered to.

At the same time, the English Church separated from the Roman Church and became independent, Protestantism began to spread in England, the distinctive feature of which is the absence of a church hierarchy and the rejection of apostolic mediation in the relationship between God and man. Protestantism believed that the source of faith can only be the Bible, and a person himself can correctly understand it without the guidance of the church. The individual gains freedom in the interpretation of religion, and this is naturally transferred to other areas of public life. The English scientist James Frode believed that the Church Reformation was the greatest event in the history of England, a powerful force that spread the Anglo-Saxons all over the planet and left a trace of English genius and character in the life of mankind.

Many historians note that in Britain, national identity was defined in the 16th century, earlier than in many European countries. According to American sociologist Leah Greenfeld, "The British remained the only nation in the world for almost two hundred years. Individualistic civic nationalism developed in England" (3. Grinfeld L. Nationalism. Five paths to modernity / [trans.: T. I. Gringolts, M. R. Virozub] M.: PER SE, 2008. 528 p., p. 18).

In the 16th century in England, for the first time in Europe, there was a transition from a traditional to a capitalist economy. Before the English bourgeois Revolution of the middle of the 17th century, there was an agrarian revolution.  As a result of the reforms, land became the subject of free purchase and sale, which ensured the formation of a capitalist way of life in the agricultural sector of the country's economy. The formation of small landowners contributes to the emergence of the middle class, which becomes a catalyst for both the political and economic development of England. To understand the importance of this reform, let's  compare the South American countries and the United States. The countries that became independent as a result of the revolutions in Spain's South American possessions did not make such changes, and the land remained the property of the old Latifundists. But nearby, in the USA, which became independent, at about the same time, these reforms were conducted. As a result, the newly formed estate of landowners gained voting rights, which contributed to the accelerated development of the country.

The changes noted above have made the British free and motivated.  According to the American sociologist Leah Greenfeld, the British were the first in Europe in the 16th century to become "a community of free and equal individuals" (Ibid., p. 32). Therefore, the motivation and tools of the British conquest of the world are different from those of the classical empires. The Spanish Empire was formed as a result of geographical discoveries, Germany lacked living space, Russia was inclined to expand its borders all the time because of ambitions, the French longed for world domination.

In England, liberal reforms contributed to the rapid economic development of the Kingdom, which subsequently formed the basis for the formation of the British Empire. The British began to produce more than they could consume, and the surplus began to be exported, first to European countries, later to Africa, Asia, America, and the Middle East. On the way back, they brought with them goods from local manufacturers, but not only to meet the needs of Britain itself, but also for re-export to other European countries. The re-export of eastern and other goods began to generate more revenue than the actual export of British products. Global international trade required the organization of transportation of exported industrial goods, imported food and raw materials. They had to be transported from port to port, stored all over the world. Transcontinental trade had to be supported and protected. That is, the original reason for British expansion was not the expansion of territories, the enslavement of peoples and their exploitation, but the protection of their economic interests. Hence, a completely different form of expansion and colony management. The initiators of new conquests were not the state, but private trading companies, which received large incomes from this. In this case, the personal aspirations of specific people played a huge role. According to the British economist and historian N. Ferguson, in the British version, the empire, otherwise associated with brutal wars, exploitation of natural resources, oppression of peoples, racism and chauvinism, loses its meaning and appears before us with a liberal "face". This is how he classifies this power – the liberal empire (Ferguson, Niall. Empire: what the modern world owes to Britain. Translated by K. Bandurovsky, Moscow: Astrel: CORPUS, 2013.-560 p.).   In order for readers to better understand what has been said, let us look at a specific example of how it happened during the colonization of India, which was the pearl of the British crown.  The British organized the first trading post (trading settlement of European merchants in colonial countries) in India in 1611. After seeing the fabulous wealth, they did not occupy this territory, although they had an advantage in armament. The British were well aware that the occupation of such a large country with a population of 165 million people, with its own special ancient civilization, would be long, exhausting and bloody. On the other hand, they thought very rationally: why invest in a conquest that would take a lot of effort and money if trade brings the main income. The land-based Indian rulers did not control the sea routes. Therefore, using their powerful fleet, the British focused on trade, control of sea routes and the development of trading posts.  The peculiarity of these settlements was their location outside the possessions of the princes of the subcontinent – thus, the British showed the local authorities that they were not interested in infringing on their sovereignty and would be limited only to trade. This process has been going on for a hundred years. During this time, the trading company ceased to be a purely trading corporation and established itself as an impressive naval force. But its military status was used exclusively for commercial purposes. By the early 20s of the 18th century, the Mughal Empire had completely collapsed, and a number of states had formed on its territory, formally recognizing the supreme authority of the Shah, but in reality completely independent. It was during this period, in 1717, that the company received exceptionally favorable trading privileges from the Shah. However, they did not matter to the independent rulers of the Indian principalities, which stimulated the military strengthening of the company on land. Occasionally, she intervened in armed conflicts between the principalities, but generally preferred to adhere to a policy of maneuvering between the main forces of the subcontinent.   However, Indian states have increased their interest in the detachments formed by Europeans. The conclusion of subsidiary agreements was initiated. Under a subsidiary agreement, the company sent its troops to the Indian principality to protect it from its neighbors, for the maintenance of which the ruler paid a subsidy to the company. In turn, the principality was obliged to provide its armed forces to the company. After the conclusion of the treaty, the principalities lost the right to conduct an independent foreign policy and self-defense. This put the princes in actual dependence on the company.

As we see, the conquest of India took place exclusively on the basis of the natural course of events in history, without any forceful pressure from the British. Only some territories of Bengal, Mysore and Jaipur were annexed through wars.

The British Empire was able to keep huge and heterogeneous territories under control through indirect control, which was a very flexible system. The main principle of such management is the preservation of traditional political institutions in a particular territory. The British colonialists collaborated with local chiefs and princes, who continued to govern the population, but under the supervision of a colonial administrator. The chiefs collected taxes and handed them over to British officials, but were relatively free to solve local problems and ensure order in the relevant territory. The Empire preserved local traditions, including the courts and the structure of the economy.  The preservation of traditional power institutions was considered by British company agents and administrators as a necessary condition for effective management, since this ensured the natural course of life for the local population, and therefore maintained the loyalty of both the elite (rajahs, chiefs, emirs, etc.) and ordinary people.

To understand the advantages of the British method of government, let us look at how it happened in other empires. They applied an assimilation policy through direct management. For example, in France, colonies were officially part of the empire as departments and were actually governed in the same way as the rest of the territories – by the appointed French administration. The powers of the traditional rulers were transferred to French colonial officials.  The administrative division of the colonies also changed: the territory of the colony was divided into districts headed by prefects; districts were divided into smaller communes and cantons. French laws and courts were in force in the colonies. Administrative workers from the local elite were treated as official employees of the empire.

A similar management system was used in the Ottoman and Russian Empires. Intolerance and disregard for other cultures, embedded in the assimilation theory, had catastrophic, irreversible consequences for the colonies and led to a contradiction with the mother country. Therefore, the collapse of the British Empire occurred bloodlessly and friendly relations exist between the members of the Commonwealth. The recent coups in Africa, in the former French colonies and the relationship of the Russian Federation with the former Soviet republics show how antagonistic these countries are to each other because of mistakes made in the management segment. This was the reason why, at the collapse of the USSR, the republics did not want to accept the new confederate version of the union proposed by the center.

Liberal rule allowed the British to have the smallest military budget – only 3% of the country's GDP, which is 2 times less than the cost of the army, for example, in the Russian Empire. A comparison of military budgets illustrates well that the British, unlike the Russians, did not rely on the army to ensure the stability of the empire, but preferred flexible policies and modern infrastructure.

In the public consciousness of England, unlike other empires, the greatness of the country was not determined by territorial expansion. On the contrary, there the maintenance of colonies was considered a burden and it was preferred to benefit from economic superiority.  In the last third of the 18th century, Adam Smith and the left-wing liberals, representatives of the Manchester school, decided on the nascent doctrine of liberalism. They believed that colonies were unnecessary and free trade should replace the old trade policy of protectionism. Political control is not a prerequisite for the economic success of an empire. The political independence of the colonies will not cause serious damage to Great Britain. On the contrary, it will get rid of the costs of their maintenance, but it will still keep them in its sphere of influence due to its economic and political power and the fact that it would be unprofitable for both sides to sever ties that have been formed for centuries. As a result, in the late 50s of the 19th century, William Gladstone, the Prime Minister of the country, formulated the doctrine of voluntary imperial bonds, based not on coercion, but on voluntary cooperation, on the foundation of commonality and origin of language, kinship of cultural traditions and political institutions, proximity from economic interests and devotion to the English crown. This concept became the embodiment of the liberal principles of individual freedom and non-interference and the basis of the colonial policy of the liberals in 1860-1870. The granting of Canada the status of a limited liability dominion State in 1867 was the culmination of the implementation of this doctrine. In the future, such statuses will be granted to other colonies.

At that time and in the future, we do not find identical concepts of colonial independence in the public thought of other empires.

The next difference between Great Britain and other empires is that they invested the most in colonies. For example, before the First World War, 45% of foreign investments were made within the empire. These investments played a key role in the development of the imperial "outskirts", contributed to the creation of harmonious relations, fulfilled the mission of modernization, leveled contradictions and restrained the national liberation movement. In such cases, the colonial elites wanted a more responsible government. Capital was invested mainly in transport infrastructure, in particular, in the construction of railways, ports, ships and other commercial and transport enterprises. In France at that time, the figure was 10%. The significant role of investments affecting the relations of the metropolises with the colonies is clearly seen in the example of the Spanish Empire. The Spaniards blocked the industrial development of their American possessions and restricted their trade. As a result, riots became more frequent, the suppression of which took the lion's share of the treasury. Therefore, the Spanish Empire collapsed very quickly.

Summarizing the above, we can come to the following conclusions. Britain's greatness is due to the introduction of liberal ideas into politics, economics, public administration and spiritual life. Would it have been able to become great if it had not conducted these reforms?  Definitely not. To overtake and be the first, innovation should always be applied. The British were not afraid of this. They did not think like many in our region, they say: "it's not the time yet, it doesn't match our mentality, we can't because of the enemies..." etc. They were brave, not afraid to challenge the mighty Spain.

One more conclusion: the Anglo-Saxons (now the doctrine of the liberal empire is being implemented by the United States) do not pose a danger to the surrounding countries, as many in our region want to imagine. They respect the culture of others, do not require the violent use of language, do not rush with the delusional idea of expanding borders, do not want to enslave the weak. They value their freedom and respect someone else's. After the victory over Germany and Japan, the Americans made efforts to restore these countries from the post-war devastation. This is nonsense in world history. Usually the winners require a contribution.  Unlike the GDR, which is located in the Soviet bloc and has limited sovereignty, West Germany, inherited by the Anglo-Saxons, has become completely independent and sovereign. They have something to offer the world, and there is a need for your product. The profit from this activity is quite satisfactory to them.

Therefore, we should not be afraid of them and cooperate better with them, especially since we have an excellent example of mutual cooperation: oil contracts that have helped our country become strong and sovereign compared to other countries of the South Caucasus.

Agabalayev Shahmar, Ph.D. in Economics