Imperial Federation

The task is quite obvious. You just need to abolish racism. Clearly direct democracy is not going to work but then such is so rarely employed even in nation states never mind global empires. Susano might say that a globe spanning oligarchy would be deplorable, but I suspect there would be considerable benefits for those within its borders.

That's still not the same as keeping millions of people underrepresented though. It certainly wouldn't be seen in the same way by the Indian intelligentsia.

'I ask you, why is the vote of a Birmingham factory worker worth five times the vote of his Indian brother? London calls India the Jewel of the Empire but I remind you, jewels are bound closely by their settings. This is no true Federation of equals, merely a form of lip service to the ideals of democracy and self-government'- Mohandas Gandhi

The key is to permit the Indian intelligentsia (and African and so on) fluid entry into the ruling oligarchy and its most enjoyable perogatives. True there will always be a few dissenting voices, there are ultimately only so many civil service positions and assorted quangos to go around, but if the most ambitious, adept and vigorous are kept happy then only the less capable and thus less dangerous shall complain. As a result while Indians shall come to rule India, and indeed shall be a prevelent throughout the Empire, there is no particular reason why the Empire would become "Indian" unless we are to view things in narrow racial terms. If a mandarin is educated in British (or British style) universities, if he reads British books, entertains himself with British sports, dresses in the British style, lives in a British styled house and so on then at a certain point it is surely only racial-biologicalism that can say he is somehow an Indian rather than British.

Now ofcourse abolishing racism with a POD in the late 19th century is somewhere between implausible and impossible, but an earlier POD might perhaps suffice.
 
Is it possible to include a scenario where the Just and Reasonable Imperial Forces liberate Saxony, which then votes to be annexed into the Empire?

I am thinking Field Marshal Gandhi would be the best choice for leading the peacekeeping forces from their bases in Hannover
 

Susano

Banned
Is it possible to include a scenario where the Just and Reasonable Imperial Forces liberate Saxony, which then votes to be annexed into the Empire?

I am thinking Field Marshal Gandhi would be the best choice for leading the peacekeeping forces from their bases in Hannover

...are you trying to fulfill all clichees?:rolleyes:
See "Disunited Germany" clichee, under reasons: "wanking another country, fearful of an united Germanys influence":rolleyes:
 
Maybe it isnt a bad thing, but its clearly not what these Britwankers here want. Which is why I find such threads always so annoying - the sheer hypocrisy involved in them: Oh of course the British Empire was a force of good - now lets see how many people we can still dominate without it getting too undemocratic!:rolleyes:

Aren't you the guy upset that Stresemann isn't using all out economic warfare to make Mitteleuropa his bitch?
 

Susano

Banned
Aren't you the guy upset that Stresemann isn't using all out economic warfare to make Mitteleuropa his bitch?

Well, I certainly never advocated a German Empire spanning all of Central Europe and the Balkans! Which would be the more direct equivalent. And I proposed that Stresemann should use economic warfare in case ethnic German minorities in East and East Central Europe get hurt, which I think is reasonable...
 
I think it possible that the working model of the Grand Imperial Federation of Greater Britain and random BUT EQUAL Parts would be a fantastic example to the other states of Europe, sort of like a kindly older brother is to his appreciative siblings.

I estimate by 1950 there will be some sort of pan European Friendship Pact, with a flag made up of hands gripped in comradeship against a swirling rainbow, where each colour signifies a democractic virtue.
 

Teleology

Banned
The trick to a paternalist set up like that would be for there to be an Imperial Government, not a British government, an Imperial Army, not a British Army; etc.

A Federation of separate entities would never work without either becoming unBritish or remaining British by being undemocratic (though a BritFed might work, as previously mentioned, with just Canada and Australia for instance).

I've seen timelines where there's never an American Revolution where the growing size and power of British North America leads to this sort of unitary empire set up.
 
'I ask you, why is the vote of a Birmingham factory worker worth five times the vote of his Indian brother? London calls India the Jewel of the Empire but I remind you, jewels are bound closely by their settings. This is no true Federation of equals, merely a form of lip service to the ideals of democracy and self-government'- Mohandas Gandhi

'Mr. Gandhi politely fails to mention that the Birmingham factory worker earns for our Empire roughly five times as much, and pays his taxes accordingly. Does the Indian worker deserve equal representation? Yes! But only when his contribution to the Empire is of equal standing.' - Winston Churchill, Shadow Minister for the Imperial Office

(e.g. play the economic angle; even today India has less than half the GDP of the UK...)
 
Following up on the economic argument, Federation would simply have to happen before universal suffrage. A property requirement sufficiently low to permit even the British working classes to vote would still leave the vast majority of Indians out of the electoral system. This would not require any special discrimination against the non-white portions of the Empire and would be an unalloyed boon to them (giving them some say rather than the none which they historically had). And of course, as the world became more enlightened the property requirements would be lowered until the English, Scottish and Welsh were but one small tribe among many, far smaller in fact than the Bengali for example, but all would, for all practical purposes, be British.
Susano's criticisms assume that the alternative to an insufficiently democratic British Empire at the time of our discussion is a more democratic Empire when in fact the alternative is the entirely undemocratic British Empire which actually existed. i.e. He allows the perfect to be the mortal enemy of the better-than-nothing.
 
'Mr. Gandhi politely fails to mention that the Birmingham factory worker earns for our Empire roughly five times as much, and pays his taxes accordingly. Does the Indian worker deserve equal representation? Yes! But only when his contribution to the Empire is of equal standing.' - Winston Churchill, Shadow Minister for the Imperial Office

(e.g. play the economic angle; even today India has less than half the GDP of the UK...)


So at that point your disenfranchising the unemployed and homeless? and do the Princes and merchants who are far richer then an industrial worker could dream of being have their vote counted as more accordingly?
 

Susano

Banned
Agreed. I am however trapped in a patriarchial intellectual framework and unable to consider other, perhaps superior analogies.

:(
Paternalist doe snot mean partiarchical. It means that mindset that you displayed - a certain group or nation as benovelently leading the rets of the nation/other nations, like a father (hence the name) or as you said a larger brother. Such mindsets are both foolishly unrealistic and demeaning.

'Mr. Gandhi politely fails to mention that the Birmingham factory worker earns for our Empire roughly five times as much, and pays his taxes accordingly. Does the Indian worker deserve equal representation? Yes! But only when his contribution to the Empire is of equal standing.' - Winston Churchill, Shadow Minister for the Imperial Office

(e.g. play the economic angle; even today India has less than half the GDP of the UK...)

Mr Churchill wants to scold us for economical standing, yet is not our economical policy decided in London? If by staying in the Federation we remain too poor to gain equal representation, maybe we should try to pursue economical policies outside the Federation!

;)

One could weigh Federation members by GDP of course, but I dont think the lower GDP members will put up with that for long. And it still wouldnt be democratic - the basic conundrum is still there: You cannot have a "good" lasting British Empire - either it will be evil, or it will not be British anymore.
 
One could weigh Federation members by GDP of course, but I dont think the lower GDP members will put up with that for long. And it still wouldnt be democratic - the basic conundrum is still there: You cannot have a "good" lasting British Empire - either it will be evil, or it will not be British anymore.

Democracy does not absolutely equal proportional representation, and going by GDP is a heck of a lot more democratic than the arbitrary division that nearly every federation TL uses.

The real advantage is that the dominions (India included) have a definable political incentive to grow their own economies. This allows them to increase their own political standing, while also making Imperial Preference more plausible.
 
What would happen in Ireland, would the Greens be pacified enough by this Federation or would they still break off?
 
Ireland was already part of the UK at this time and rather distinct from the issue of Imperial Federation.

Passage and implementation of one of the Home Rule Bills, in combination with an avoidance of the Curragh Mutiny, would be quite sufficient enough to stop any 'Greens' from 'breaking off'.
 
Top