Which book is it? Looks like an interesting read.
Anyway, here are my (incomplete?) thoughts on this sensitive and complicated topic in light of history.
First and foremost,
empires are meant to rise and fall.
There is no other way around it, regardless of any circumstances.
Secondly,
an Empire only becomes Empire when it is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial (and even multi-religious) diverse Entity.
Otherwise, it would be a (small or large) kingdom/nation state. (Not in today’s terms of course)
My core argument is,
inter-racial, inter-ethnic and inter-religious tension, lack of harmony and Dysfunctional interaction is not the 'first cause' of empire’s decay.
Rather, it is the consequence of systematic failure. (But then of course, these tension, lack of harmony and dysfunctional interactions between races, ethnicities and religious groups itself speed up the decay. But nevertheless it is not the 'first cause')
Let me explain that in theory.
A hypothetical Empire's overall greatness and affluence reaches its peak when the SYSTEM is functioning most efficiently.
Efficient functioning of the
'SYSTEM' means, harmonious and functioning interaction between races, ethnicities and religious groups (given almost by definition Empires are diverse) and everybody living up to their potential.
(However, even if principles of a SYSTEM in paper agrees on Almost equality for everyone in terms of political, economic and social rights regardless race ethnicity and religion, in reality such equality is never achieved.
There always be dominance, bias and discrimination to some extent.)
Now what is this 'SYSTEM' itself?
I think, informally it can be described best as,
'the political, economic and social structure' that Empire produces for its own functioning.
And any such SYSTEM
highly reflects the ethos of early conquerors or the imperial race/ethnicity/religious group.
Now, when it comes to the European empires, the SYSTEMS in principle never called for equality for everyone (regardless of race, ethnicity and religion) on paper, let alone in real world implementations.
In later stage of the Empires, (Let's call it the age of commerce and affluence) European SYSTEMS we’re implemented in such a way to give its imperial subjects (other racial, ethnic and religious groups) very limited political, economic and social rights just good enough to keep the overall stability and status quo but to maximumly benefit the conquerors or mother countries. (in that case, Britain and France) Hence, why we hear a lot about political and economic exploitation of the Empires today.
I wrote, 'in the later stage of the empires' because, in the early stage it was mostly savageness and slavery.
So, these European empirical SYSTEMS functioned for a while in this age of commerce and affluence and kept a relative stability by the use of soft and hard powers w.r.t its subjects.
Until, these SYSTEMS became dysfunctional and all kind of instabilities spread, ultimately resulting in territorial disintegration of the Empires.
It is very important to keep in mind, our whole discussion here focusing on
Domestic and Internal causes and effects on an empire and its SYSTEM.
Otherwise, an empire's territorial disintegration could also happen (and pretty often did happen in real world) due to external causes. Like conquest by other empires. (However, ultimately this is also a consequence of lack of efficiency in the SYSTEM of conquered and Subjected Empire. As one Empire would overtakes another when its SYSTEM is functioning better than the other one and delivering more productivity)
Now, I don't have enough knowledge to comment on the Roman Empire but, when it comes to early Islamic caliphate, Ummayed or Abbasid Empires, (and later the Ottomans to some extent) i can confidently say, they had quite different SYSTEMS in principle (on paper) as well as in implementation (in real world.) Compared to the late European Empires.
Because……well…..first and foremost, these unified SYSTEMS (vastly influenced by Sunni schools of jurisprudence)
in principle and on paper strongly calls for equal rights for every Muslim regardless racial or ethnic backgrounds. (And as the the Empire grew older and more and more people converted to Islam, they became beneficiary of the systematic rights.
Of course, that is not to say in real world implementations it stopped all discrimination and bias. (Far from it)
(It doesn't matter if humanity has the most perfect and harmonious SYSTEM in their hand, there always be decriminalization in real world implications. Bacause, human species by nature is imperfect)
However, European SYSTEMS in principle did not grant the equal rights to the masses (in different parts of the Empires) who converted to Christianity and embraced European Cultures, let alone in real world implementations.
They continued the systematic emphasis on the superiority of the mother countires/nations. (Due to overwhelming racial and ethnic prejudices)
In fact, I would even argue the status of 'protected person' (non muslims) in Islamoc Empires was higher than subjects of the European Empires. (Of course, a lot can be debated in particular about this topic)
Last but the not the least, it is very important to keep in mind, every unified Grand SYSTEM as whole consist largely two parts.
Firstly, Some fundamental political, economic and social ideas at its core about the 'Order of things' and the way everything should be.
Secondly, a vast and complicated frameworks and structural processes to successfully implement those ideas in real world.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, the later is the most crucial element of any 'Unified SYSTEM.'
Let's me explain why-
Most of the political or social ideologies has some nice and cool watchwords at its cores. But those are pretty much meaningless if the frameworks and processes to implement them in a highly complicated real world are not coherent and functional.
In fact, it is not always the bad ideologies (like Nazism) that leads to violence and suffering. Rather, pretty often it is good ideologies (in principle) with incoherent and dysfunctional framework and processes (about how to implement them) that leads to violence and suffering.
(One could easily take Communism as such example. While on paper its core ideas about equality and justice apparently sounds pretty good, However, in real world implementations it led to horrible consequences due to its incoherent and dysfunctional frameworks and structural processes of the communism.)
(Let's say, if we consider the rights and facilities as an 'spectrum', here is an interesting thought experiment.
So let's say, a certain SYSTEM offer 80% rights and facilities for a certain group of people
in principle. But in
real world implementations it can only deliver 70%.
On the other hand, another SYSTEM offer 100% in principle to everyone.
But in real world implementations, it can only deliver 50% to certain group of people.
Which one do you think better?
Of course you can argue that, the one that offers 100% facilities equally to everyone, always has the chance to reform and adapt its framework and structural processes to deliver desirable outcomes in real world.
However, the one that 'descriminately' offer 80% facilities to certain groups of people will never deliver equality in real world implementations no matter what. Because, in principle it is discriminatory.
The issue is not so much that it is false. Rather, apparently it seems to be true, however, the core issue lies somewhere else.
Which is, there is no such thing as absolute equality for every group.
We all know that in real world, this is true. But that is not what I am talking about here.
What I mean is,
the idea of absolute equality for everyone is an incoherent concept in itself.
Because, absolute equality cannot produce any functioning structure.
As any structure in this material universe by definition requires hierarchy to function. (And a functioning structure is necessary to implement any core principles)
It is no-brainer that, absolute equality and a hierarchy are by definition two opposite concepts.
(Consequently, the idea of absolute equality is self defeating.)
And the Second aspect of this topic has to do with longevity and endurance of any given unified SYSTEM.
When we know absolute equality for everyone is not possible, in this case at some point there has to be prioritisation of someone's right over someone else's right.
In any given scenario at such point someone will feel discriminated against. (There is no other way around it)
When such stage arrises, either you have to discriminate against the majority or the minority and prioritise one's right over the other's.
This process always gradually builds up discontent against the SYSTEM in people who has been 'discriminated against'.
Now if it is the minority who has been 'discriminated against' little bit, the effect of this discontent on the SYSTEM would be lesser and slower than if it was the other way around.
Thus, the SYSTEM likely to remain more functional for longer period of time.
In a nutshell, 'limited discrimination' against minorities is a necessary evil for greater good. Because, (let’s not forget) when SYSTEM becomes dysfunctional it is almost always the non-dominant minority who suffers the most.
Also, one effective way to counterbalance it,
is to base the concept of majority on dominant culture and ideology, rather than race and ethnicity. As the later two cannot be negotiated or changed, however, anybody can always culturally adopt any change.
So, the concept of majority based on culture is an inclusive and flexible majority.
Similar to the 'Majority' in Islamic thought)
