BY STEWART SLATER

The two most frequent events in public life are Keir Starmer U-turning on one of his “core” beliefs, and the chattering classes frothing over Britain’s imperial legacy. And here we are again. The former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, last week opined that Australia’s colonisation by Britain was the “luckiest thing” ever to happen to the country, and the outrage train has been fired up and is making steam.  

Usually, before mounting the high horse of moral outrage, it is worth considering exactly what one is outraged about. And, as is usually the case, the situation is nuanced. Howard acknowledges that British colonialism was not perfect but argues that it was “infinitely more successful and beneficent…than other European countries.”

He is not making the broader claim that imperialism is good, but the lesser argument that, if one had to be colonised, one might prefer that it was done by the British.  

To some, of course, even this is unacceptable. Empire is bad and that is all there is to say. Just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant, one cannot have a slightly less malign imperialism. But such a view – that nations have a right to self-determination and that it trumps everything – is a recent one. For most of history, and so widespread is Empire in the record that the history of humanity is the history of Empire, it has merely been a natural phenomenon, the sort of thing humans do. Good or bad in its consequences perhaps, but not in and of itself. As Thucydides has his Athenians tell his Melians, “The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must”.  

Let us, however, read the room and grant that Empire is always and everywhere bad. Does that mean we cannot rank the countries which indulged in it? Surely not. I don’t believe in the death penalty, but if it has to be done, I would far rather lethal injection were used than burning at the stake, or any of the other unpleasantly inventive ways societies have found to dispose of their enemies. Empire may be bad, but some forms of it may be preferable.

With the benefit of hindsight, British colonialism certainly seems to have had better outcomes than that practised by other nations. The only former colonies to be in the G7 are America and Canada. Only two former colonies make it into the top 10 in the Human Development Index – Hong Kong and Australia. Only two former colonies make it into the top 10 of the Corruption Perceptions Index – Singapore and New Zealand. Of the 4 countries identified by Global Risk Insights which have avoided the “resources curse”, 2 – Canada (again) and Botswana were ruled by Britain. The extent of the British contribution to these achievements may be debatable, but that they have been made by no colony of another Imperial Power cannot be denied.  

The success of distant descendants may bring little comfort to those suffering colonial oppression, but there are good grounds for supposing that, even at the time, it would be preferable to be a subject of Britain. For the British Empire was unusually open to its subjects. As Colin Powell, a grandson of empire, noted in his autobiography:

“After the British ended slavery, they told my ancestors that they were now British citizens with all the rights of any subject of the Crown…The British did establish good schools and made attendance mandatory…Consequently West Indians had an opportunity to develop attitudes of independence, self-responsibility and self-worth.”  

While for most this might mean no more than a position in the “lower ranks of the civil service”, for those in the upper echelons, further opportunities were available. Nehru was educated at Harrow and Cambridge while the first Indian students matriculated at Oxford in 1871. Compared to its peers and, perhaps ultimately to its disadvantage, the Empire was reasonably colour-blind when it came to talent-spotting. In this it was unique. France rejected Ho Chi Minh’s application to its Colonial Administrative School, Britain gave Lee Kuan Yew (and his future wife) a scholarship to Cambridge.  

As a result, at the upper levels, relations between ruler and ruled were closer than in other empires. The Indian Secretary’s office was designed, in deference to local sensitivities, to allow two Maharajas to enter at the same time, while specific orders of chivalry were invented for the Raj. A particularly revealing sign comes in the diary entry of a grand memsahib, recounted in David Cannadine’s study of the British experience of Empire, Ornamentalism. Having discussed with her cook the plans for that evening’s dinner in honour of a local dignitary, she is taken aback when the Glaswegian domestic remarks “It’s not right, our sort eating with their sort.” Little, she confides, did cook realise that an Indian prince was far more her “sort”, than a Scottish servant. Whereas other empires operated on impermeable racial grounds, Britain relied, at least in part, on its more fluid hobby horse, class.  

This relative openness allowed Britain (uniquely) to toy with making the Empire truly representative, by instituting an Imperial Parliament. There were almost continuous discussions about so doing from the mid-1800’s, none of which came to anything simply because none of Whitehall’s finest minds could conceive of a way in which it would not, because of the population, become an Indian Parliament. We may well criticise this failure, but we should at least acknowledge the attempt, and the refusal to game the system to ensure that the British retained control.  

This is not to say that the British Empire was perfect. It certainly committed atrocities. It may have been early to end slavery, but it retained the practice in the colonies longer than it should have. It was, however, almost certainly better than any alternative. As late as 1945, a Dutch colonial official could remark of Indonesia, “We have ruled here with the whip and the club for 300 years and we will do so for another 300.” (Indonesia gained independence in 1949) but by that time, Britain had realised that the game was up and was preparing its retreat.  

The philosopher John Rawls introduced the notion of the “veil of ignorance” – you should design society so that, not knowing what position you would hold, you would choose to live in it. In terms of modern empires, Britain probably comes closest to meeting that requirement but there is an earlier equivalent which, for its time, was probably better.  

For Rome too brought peace and stability, technological marvels and the rule of law. Like Britain, it was generally tolerant of its subjects’ beliefs. Indeed, in matters religious at least, it was often happy to pick up ideas that took its fancy. As long as its subjects paid their taxes and did not try to leave, Rome was remarkably live and let live. But it was much better at promoting colonial talent. In the late Republic, natives of Italian towns which had recently been granted citizenship were mocked as novi homines “new men”, but just over 100 years later, the Empire’s leading public intellectual and de facto ruler was a Spaniard. Where Seneca led, others followed. After 100 A.D. few Roman Emperors were actually Roman as the Imperial Capital transformed itself from a birthplace of talent into a magnet for it. The best Britain offered its colonial subject was office in their colony, Rome offered its the world.  

John Howard may be right that colonisation by the British was the best available future for Australia. But he might also rue that Rome never invented an ocean-going trireme.

Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.