Navigating empires

Power and control are not straightforward matters anymore. You know? Empires and imperialism exist in different forms today than in the past. Economic empires exist, private sector empires, shareholder empires, empires of debt, oligarchical empires, and all of these various types of empires overlap and intersect. You know, there are spheres of influence that operate like soft empires.

Black rock and vanguard are imperial structures. These new sort of opaque versions of empire can all occupy the same geographical territories, at the same time. And in some cases or in most cases actually, the governments of those territories are comparatively minor or subordinate subordinate management structures in their own lands. The governments are just nodes in a larger, power network. It's not the same everywhere, but it's certainly the case in the West.

I mean, the global South, in the developing world, in some Muslim countries, it's less the case. But to a great extent, that's only because the global power networks, have just not absorbed them yet. They haven't been integrated into the virtual territory of any of the of any of these other empires. So national governments in those parts of the world still, are able to exercise some degree of sovereignty, but that's likely to change very soon with the pivot to the global South. You know, BRICS and the redirection of the global economy to the global South means the integration of the Southern Hemisphere into those overlapping, intersecting private sector power networks, those empires.

This poses an extraordinarily complicated challenge, and it renders everything that we previously thought about liberation movements, you know, independence movements, revolutions, and so on. It renders all of that completely obsolete. Even ideas about political Islam, Islamic State, Khilafa, and all of that. All of these notions have just become too simplistic in light of modern power dynamics. Today, you have to secure, your sovereignty in multiple spheres at the same time against the domination of multiple other imperial powers, undefined, imperial powers.

I mean, you can declare your independence. You can declare, you know, an Islamic government, a Khilafa, or what have you. You can declare all of that tomorrow, but what would that even mean? What sovereignty would you have? What real independence would you have when you're still embedded within this dense interlocking set of power networks?

When your economy is located within the shared virtual territory of multiple empires? I mean, look at what those powers did to the, Tsaritsa government in Greece, for instance. Listen to Ioannis Verifakis talking about the IMF and the European Central Bank and how Greece's banks were threatened with a total cutoff of credit and liquidity. Or when, Manuel, Zaleya in Honduras was toppled in a coup because he wanted to raise the minimum wage And the, what used to be the old United Fruit Company, now Chiquita Brands International, they supported the coup with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. And then after the coup, you know, they paid lobbyists to make sure that the coup was legal and constitutional.

And then the IMF opened the tab for massive loans to the country. Or you could look at what's happening in Russia right now. You know? There's just endless examples. No node in the network can have independence of sovereignty, and it can't make autonomous decisions.

Independence isn't something that you can just declare. It's something that you have to build up over time, and that's largely an economic, not a political project. You have to build the capacity to extract yourself from the network, and that means not only, developing your self sufficiency, but also the ability to resist external coercion. Russia worked on that, and they started to take it very seriously after Crimea, and that's why, they're able to even function now under the sanctions. The UAE has also been developing this for a very long time and taking it quite seriously, and they're doing very well with that.

This requires incredibly tactful maneuvering within, the imperial power networks that you're already in, counterbalancing, counterbalancing interests discreetly and strategically trying to increase your own power without threatening or conflicting with others. It requires a coldly objective assessment of your position in the networks, an an assessment of your resources, and your impact on everyone else's interests. No revolution is going to achieve that for you. No jihad, no declaration of independence, no declaration of a or the enactment of the Sharia. Those types of things are all at this point empty gestures that will not suddenly make you viable and sovereign.

And again, there's just too many examples to go through to prove that. You know, the most neglected aspect of all of this, in my opinion, is the people and the failure of the people to recognize private sector power as the most, and the major controlling force in their lives, which needs to be brought to accountability. The whole direction of political activism of organizing and so on, in my view, needs to shift from government to the private sector. Look. In Islam, we have understood from day one that leadership, that policy making, governance, is all determined.

No matter what state structure you have, no matter what sort of government system you have, it's all determined by the highest ranks of influential people in the society. The people that we call the the people who tie and untie, the people who connect and disconnect, what you would call the movers and shakers. That has always been the case and it always will be the case in every society, in every system, everywhere. Because this is just a reality of human society. Some people have more influence than others, and that's the case today in the West, in the East, in the global South, in the global North, and in the Muslim world.

And those people and the institutions that represent them need to be brought into the focus of activism, of lobbying, of campaigning, of pressure to make them accountable and responsive to the public. That's private sector power. And private sector power is itself embedded in networks of workers and consumers and other stakeholders. But when those those networks of consumers and workers and stakeholders are inactive, are complacent, are dormant, or distracted. That is how private sector power is allowed, to operate independently, selfishly, and with sovereignty because no one is paying attention.

And everyone is, preoccupied with sort of the official power dynamics instead of the real existing power dynamics. In other words, they're busy thinking about the government and completely overlooking the powers that eclipse governments. Even though there are innumerable ways that the people can impact the private sector more than they can impact the government, they have you focusing on the least important and the least meaningful dimension of the power structure. And ironically, they have you directing your anger and your resentment at governments while very often celebrating, the very oligarchs and billionaires and brand names and companies that the government is serving against your interests. I mean, you'll admire, say, someone like Elon Musk or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or or whoever you like.

You'll admire these people while hating the politicians who do their bidding. And sometimes you hate them because they do their bidding, but your discontent is never directed at the ones who are being obeyed. Doesn't make any sense, does it? So the relationship between the public and business, seriously has to be transformed. And this in and of itself, I think could get you much farther towards having a nation with genuine sovereignty and independence.

But it requires the awareness of the people and the participation of the people and redefining the relationship between the private sector and the population.