Imperial Liberties: Democratisation and Governance in the ‘New’ Imperial Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".