Session 9: Colonization and the Domestic Political Structure

The distinction between the structure of the political arena and the unitary level of analysis is pivotal in understanding the complexity of the way the different states interact and react to each other. By pointing out the dual definition of the term 'relation' we are provided with a clear elucidation of how even though the terms structure and state are used interchangeably, in actuality they are both separate; one is permanent and remains regardless of personality and behavior, while the other differs according to political actors.

Waltz claims that structure and its definition can be applied to realms of widely different substance so long as the arrangement is similar, and that changes in arrangement are merely structural changes. This outlook on structures is true to a large degree and when he claims "political structures shape political processes,' we can easily point out how this principle works in the real world. It would be interesting to see how far agency is involved in molding the structure of state? If we look at states who were once colonized by foreign powers, the colonized are the ones who were compelled to act as the vagrants and abide by the rules of the colonizer. It was this colonizer who developed the structure of the political system and used the romanticized portrait of privitism to not only to bring "civilization" to an allegedly uncivilized race, but also to develop institutions that would benefit the mother country. Once these colonizers left, the vestiges of their legacy were impossible to escape- this is the way the domestic political structure was thus shaped.

If we look at Congo, where King Leopold II unleashed upon the ingenious population a brutal rule, the locals were so crippled and unable to develop and prosper after the colonizers left because they had negligible part in the way the society and government was ruled under the foreign power. Today, regardless of having an abundance of diamonds, Congo suffers from the resource curse because its political institutions have been unable to develop because of its colonial history. So, the political processes are largely defined by the structure of the political system- something which Waltz reiterates. 

We do not have to look far to find examples of how political structures are shaped because of the colonizers. Pakistan itself has been unable to escape from the institutions upon which it was governed at the time of British rule. The new system by by which we live today is determined largely by the British and we are essentially living in an over-developed state (where new structures are placed on top of the old institutions, and not replaced), a phrase coined by Hamza Alvi. So, even though we do have some sort of cultural identity in our political system, there are remnants of the colonial era, and this dictates the political processes and decision making processes by which we live today.

Waltz provides an interesting way to look at politics, and for that he should be applauded. His structuring of the domestic political structure was perhaps the most interesting aspect of the chapter because it is true what he claims- we do interact not only on an individual level between ourselves and shape our lives according to the political structure, but this structure also determines how we interact with other political actors and determine the policies that we implement in the international arena.