Part I. Theoretical and methodological underpinnings : Beyond the state we're in: The mutual constitution of the domestic and international domains -- Part II. Democratisation revisited: The liberal project redux : Ideology of imperialism: Capitalism, liberalism and 'democracy' -- 'We all know a democracy when we see one': Promulgating the orthodox notion of democracy -- Imperial liberties: The global constitution of neoliberal democracy in Africa -- Encountering the orthodoxy: More on the limits and antinomies of (neo) liberal democracy -- Part III. Expropriating the expropriators: Reclaiming African political history : Peoples without democracy? Precolonial political communities and mindscapes -- Enter the (neo)colony: Anti-democracy and the (neo)colonial condition.
This book seeks to provide the most comprehensive and sustained engagement and critique of neo-Gramscian analyses available in the literature. In examining neo-Gramscian analyses in IR/IPE, the book engages with two fundamental concerns in international relations: (i) The question of historicity and (ii) The analysis of radical transformation
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
The era since the Great Recession of 2008/9 has witnessed the rise and increased sway of numerous authoritarian-right movements, regimes and leaders across the globe. Such political developments remain inadequately understood; yet several commonplaces have emerged. First, a tendency to eschew critical enquiry of the range of forces on the radical right, in favour of collapsing such political developments into generalisations such as 'populism'. Second, such over-generalisations have commonly elided analysis of neofascist forces, strategies and processes. Third, despite some engagement with 'economic' factors, examination of these political developments has largely eschewed the underlying organic crisis of neoliberal capital accumulation. This article critiques such commonplaces. The first section problematises the category of 'populism' as largely inadequate in understanding the complexity of forces and dynamics on the radical right. The subsequent section argues that an emergent or immanent neofascism exists within such political developments, outlining eight theses on the spectre of neofascism and the conditions that underpin the rise of elements of fascistic politics. The final section concludes with key aspects for an antifascism, arguing that opposing neofascism entails the transcendence of neoliberal capitalism itself. And a meaningful alternative to neoliberal state and capital requires us to look again to socialism.
It is commonplace to characterise political violence and war in Africa as 'internal', encapsulated in the apparently neutral term 'civil war'. As such, accounts of political violence tend to focus narrowly on the combatants or insurrectionary forces, failing to recognise or address the extent to which political violence is historically and globally constituted. The article addresses this problematic core assumption through examination of the case of Sudan, seeking to contribute to a rethinking of protracted political violence and social crisis in post-colonial Africa. The article interjects in such debates through the use and detailed exposition of a distinct methodological and analytical approach. It interrogates three related dimensions of explanation which are ignored by orthodox framings of 'civil war': (1) the technologies of colonial rule which (re)produced and politicised multiple fractures in social relations, bequeathing a fissiparous legacy of racial, religious and ethnic 'identities' that have been mobilised in the context of post-colonial struggles over power and resources; (2) the major role of geopolitics in fuelling and exacerbating conflicts within Sudan and the region, particularly through the cold war and the 'war on terror'; and (3) Sudan's terms of incorporation within the capitalist global economy, which have given rise to a specific character and dynamics of accumulation, based on primitive accumulation and dependent primary commodity production. The article concludes that political violence and crisis are neither new nor extraordinary nor internal, but rather, crucial and constitutive dimensions of Sudan's neo-colonial condition. As such, to claim that political violence in Sudan is 'civil' is to countenance the triumph of ideology over history.
Notions of empire and imperialism have increasingly returned to the lexicon of mainstream theorisation of the international. Much of this literature identifies a 'new' imperialism, distinct from the supposed postand non-imperial global(ising) order of the Westphalian state system. The article contends that such accounts occlude our understanding of the 'long' history of imperialism. It argues that the putatively post-imperial institutions and discourses of 'global governance' are internally related to 'post-colonial' imperialism. In particular the regime of 'democratisation' and the curtailing of democratic freedom constitute a principal means through which imperial rule is articulated. Despite a vast literature on 'democratisation', there has been a paucity of analysis which interrogates the Great Power-defined agenda of democratisation. Mainstream accounts presuppose what requires explanation, taking for granted the non-imperial character of this global project, the hegemony of a specific and impoverished model of (neo)liberal democracy, highly problematic, de-historicised notions of state, society and self and the categorical separation of the 'domestic' and the 'international'. The article provides detailed substantive analysis of the endeavour by the dominant social agents of the democratisation project to constitute a (neo)liberal procedural notion of democracy in the 'post-colonial' world. It identifies the dominant social agents of this project and explores the theoretical underpinnings of the dominant model being propounded. Informed by this, the article examines the democratisation project according to coveted transformations in three domains: the minimal, 'neutral' state, the constitution of 'civil society' and the promotion of the liberal 'self'. The article contends that far from an alternative to imperialism, 'democratisation' involves the imposition of a Western (neo)liberal procedural form of democracy on imperialised peoples. The character of the 'informal' imperial order is such that self-determination does not mean autonomy. Rather it means the 'freedom' to embrace the rules, norms and principles of the emerging (neo)liberal global order.
'Democratisation' and 'good governance' have come to constitute a fundamental aspect of Western interventions in Latin America, Asia, Africa and the former Eastern bloc, particularly in the post-Cold War period. Despite a vast literature on 'democratisation,' there has been a paucity of analysis which interrogates the great-power-defined agendas of democratisation. The naturalism of a particular vision or model of democracy is such that its promotion is rarely questioned or critically interrogated. Yet democracy is an essentially contested concept and universalistic claims around the Western (neo)liberal notion of democracy are being increasingly challenged. The article interrogates therefore the notion(s) of democracy articulated by the dominant social agents associated with the democratisation project, through specific reference to Africa. It contends that an orthodox notion can be identified. The orthodoxy constitutes a (neo)liberal, procedural notion of democracy, a claim substantiated through interrogation of the orthodoxy and the detailing of the extent to which the orthodox notion is informed by (neo)liberal theory and practice. The article concludes that 'democratisation' and 'governance' interventions are to be understood as a current manifestation of the liberal project.
