The Third Way of Governing a Diverse Nation：Black people have the right to establish their own autonomous state
The fate of Britain after World War II—victorious yet defeated—stemmed not only from the successful implementation of the Soviet-American strategy to suppress Britain but, more critically, from Britain’s inability to devise a system capable of establishing an acceptable order for the vast territories and diverse peoples conquered during its imperialist era. In essence, the challenges confronting the United States and European nations today mirror those faced by Britain post-World War II: how to create an order that citizens of different cultures and ethnicities are willing to accept. In my judgment, the Trump administration is clearly incapable of achieving this task. Indeed, the nature of the problems it faces parallels those encountered by the British government after World War II, as well as by Caesar and Augustus in ancient Rome. Under pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union, post-war Britain opted for contraction, shrinking into a small, single-ethnicity nation. Yet the “barbarians” have not spared Britain; they now pursue it into its homeland, stirring unrest. In contrast, Caesar and Augustus chose to harness barbarian forces to impose authoritarian rule over both Roman citizens and foreign peoples, ushering Rome into its imperial age. Certain policies adopted by Trump carry a hint of authoritarianism, a reflection of the historical predicament he faces. History does not simply repeat itself—even if Trump were willing and able to emulate Caesar and Augustus, he could not become a true “modern Caesar.” Nevertheless, the historical logic confronting these political figures remains consistent. Viewed more broadly, the cycles of division and unification in ancient China—its periods of order and chaos—reflect a contention between advocates of imperial governance and those favoring independent models of rule. The question now is: does a third way exist?
1. The Continuity of Historical Logic
The “imperial model” and the “independent model” represent two fundamental approaches to governance throughout history. The imperial model typically relies on a powerful central government to rule over diverse ethnicities and cultures, as exemplified by the Roman Empire and even Britain’s colonial system. Its strength lies in its ability to consolidate resources and maintain order, but its flaw is that oppressive rule over diverse peoples often breeds discontent, leading to division or violent conflict.
The independent model, by contrast, leans toward local sovereignty and decentralized governance, emphasizing ethnic self-determination and autonomy. This approach more readily accommodates the needs of different cultures and ethnicities, but its weakness is the lack of effective integration and coordination, which can result in internal strife or political fragmentation.
The transformation of the Roman Empire, Britain’s decline after World War II, and the cycles of division and unification in Chinese history all reflect a shared historical logic: how to establish a stable order amidst diverse cultures and ethnicities.
Rome integrated diverse peoples into an imperial system through military conquest and authoritarian rule, yet it ultimately collapsed due to internal corruption and external pressures. The “high-pressure assimilation” of Caesar and Augustus rested on a three-pronged system of military, legal, and infrastructural control: a garrison network (e.g., the Rhine frontier) maintained deterrence; Roman law granted citizenship to provincial elites (e.g., the Edict of Caracalla in 212 CE extended citizenship to all free inhabitants); and a 120,000-kilometer road network, alongside economic integration, fostered identity. However, this model depended on continuous expansion; when the Crisis of the Third Century struck, Germanic mercenaries turned against Rome, sparking its downfall.
Ancient Chinese history exhibits cycles of division and unification, alternating between centralized imperial models (e.g., Qin, Han, Tang, Song) and periods of regional fragmentation (e.g., the Three Kingdoms, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms). At its core, this cycle revolves around the balance between concentrated and dispersed power.
The two world wars depleted Britain’s economic reserves. By the time of India’s independence in 1947, Britain’s foreign debt reached £3.5 billion (equivalent to $150 billion in 2023), rendering it unable to sustain a global military presence. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance demonstrated that suppressing colonies by force was too costly and unsustainable. Between 1945 and 1965, 37 British colonies gained independence, and annual military spending as a percentage of GDP plummeted from 55% during wartime to 7% by 1960. The Westminster system proved inadequate for cross-cultural governance: the 1948 British Nationality Act attempted to preserve the empire through the concept of “Commonwealth citizenship,” but the racial tensions sparked by the 1950s immigration wave (e.g., the 1958 Notting Hill riots) exposed its failure. After losing economic and military hegemony, Britain’s imperial model contracted into a single-ethnicity framework, yet this retreat failed to resolve internal cultural conflicts (e.g., recent immigration issues and Brexit disputes).
Similarly, the United States, as a modern “empire” defined by cultural, economic, and military influence rather than direct territorial control, faces the challenges of globalization-driven multiculturalism and deepening domestic ethnic divides. Between 2016 and 2020, the proportion of minority populations in the U.S. rose from 38% to 42%, while the white population fell below 60%. This demographic shift has triggered a crisis of cultural identity, institutional difficulties, and economic instability. A 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that 62% of Republican supporters believe “the traditional American way of life is disappearing,” compared to just 23% of Democrats. The federal system struggles with a dilemma in governing diversity: centralizing power risks inflaming “states’ rights” disputes (e.g., Texas’s immigration enforcement conflicts), while devolving authority may deepen value-based divisions (e.g., California versus Southern states on abortion and gun policies). Manufacturing’s share of GDP dropped from 27% in 1950 to 11% in 2023, and unemployment in the Rust Belt has consistently exceeded the national average by 2-3 percentage points, fueling populist sentiment.
Trump’s policies—such as the border wall, immigration restrictions, and trade protectionism—carry a “high-pressure” undertone, aiming to preserve order through contraction and exclusion, akin to Caesar and Augustus’s use of military force to stabilize Rome. Yet history does not repeat so simply: Trump lacks both the absolute power of Roman times and a clear framework for institutional innovation, preventing him from becoming a “modern Caesar.”
Europe’s situation bears striking similarities to Britain’s post-war imperial contraction, Rome’s multiethnic governance, and America’s current ethnic challenges, though its unique historical context and modern environment add new layers of complexity. The difficulties European nations face in integrating Muslim immigrants can be seen as a modern iteration of imperial-era multiethnic governance. Like Britain ruling heterogeneous colonial territories, countries such as France, Britain, and the Netherlands once managed Muslim populations (e.g., North Africa, South Asia, the Middle East) through colonial domination. After World War II, as empires dissolved, these former colonial subjects entered the metropole as immigrants, bringing cultural and identity challenges akin to Britain’s failure to devise an “acceptable order” for its empire.
2. The Dilemma of Modern Diverse Governance
Modern society differs fundamentally from ancient empires due to the globalization of technology, economics, and ideology. Britain’s post-war contraction勉强 maintained the stability of a single-ethnicity nation, but today’s United States and European countries cannot fully retreat into isolationism, as globalized economic networks and information flows have tightly interwoven diverse cultures. In this context, neither simple “contraction” nor “high pressure” suffices to address the challenges:
Britain’s example shows that exiting the imperial model drastically reduced its influence, yet internal issues—such as the Scottish independence movement and immigration conflicts—persisted. If the U.S. were to adopt extreme isolationism today, it might undermine its global hegemony without resolving domestic multiethnic tensions.
The end of white rule in South Africa serves as an extreme case of Britain’s retreat from the imperial model, offering valuable lessons for contemporary Western nations. Since the 19th century, South Africa has been a labor migration hub in southern Africa, particularly during the mining boom (e.g., gold and diamonds), when large numbers of black workers from neighboring countries like Mozambique, Lesotho, and Eswatini were recruited. During apartheid (1948-1994), these immigrants were strictly controlled as temporary laborers, denied permanent residency, and deported after contracts ended, while white immigrants (mostly European) enjoyed privileged permanent status—a racially tiered policy foundational to apartheid. However, by the late 20th century, shifts in the international environment (e.g., anti-colonialism) and intensifying internal resistance altered the role and impact of foreign immigrants. In the 1980s, the anti-apartheid movement surged alongside political turmoil in neighboring states (e.g., Mozambique’s and Zimbabwe’s independence wars), driving more African immigrants into South Africa, many of whom joined the fight against apartheid.
Apartheid ended in 1994, marking South Africa’s transition from a white-minority-ruled system reliant on mining and racially oppressive labor to a democracy aiming for racial equality and economic inclusion. Rome maintained order through military suppression, but in a modern democratic framework, South Africa could not employ similar tactics, as the demands of forced assimilation or suppression clashed with human rights principles.
After apartheid, South Africa abandoned its “imperial” economic expansion model (based on colonial exploitation), attempting instead to build a nation-state, yet it struggled to effectively integrate diverse ethnic groups—paralleling Britain’s loss of global influence post-World War II. Initially, South Africa’s economy grew: World Bank data shows nominal GDP rising from $153 billion in 1994 to $458 billion in 2011, with foreign reserves increasing from $3 billion to nearly $50 billion. However, since the 2010s, growth has stagnated, unemployment soared, and inequality widened, becoming hallmarks of its economic decline.
China’s historical unification model (centralized power plus cultural assimilation) was itself a form of high-pressure governance, and the cyclical alternation between order and chaos in ancient China underscores its limited efficacy. In a globalized era, its authoritarian elements render it even less applicable, given challenges like minority governance and international scrutiny of human rights and autonomy. Thus, neither contraction nor high pressure offers a complete solution—both are mere partial borrowings from historical models.
Rome sustained order through militarism and slavery, but Trump’s hardline policies, while rallying some supporters in the short term, have deepened societal rifts, failing to forge lasting consensus.
Rome managed barbarians through military suppression and limited assimilation (e.g., citizenship grants), but it ultimately succumbed to cultural divides and economic strain—a model incompatible with modern democratic consciousness and human rights norms. Europe’s attempt to integrate Muslim immigrants through welfare systems and secular policies has faltered due to cultural differences (especially religious values), sparking internal tensions reminiscent of Rome’s later years.
3. The Third Way: Polycentric Autonomous Zones
Beyond the imperial model (centralized rule) and the independent model (fragmented division), is there a third way? The challenges of a globalized era demand frameworks that transcend the nation-state. The European Union, for instance, has sought to manage diversity through economic integration and limited political unity, but its bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of shared identity reveal its shortcomings. A third way might be “polycentric autonomous zones,” rooted in shared economic interests and climate governance, fostering mutual cultural recognition rather than forced assimilation.
Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom’s theory of polycentric governance challenges the traditional “state-versus-market” binary, offering a fresh institutional design for governing diverse societies. Its core lies in decentralization, self-organization, and nested rule systems, making it particularly suited to linguistically, religiously, and ethnically diverse contexts. Ostrom advocates polycentric strategies to overcome the limitations of unitary governance. A polycentric state would exhibit four features: Decentralized Decision-Making: Local communities, regions, and industries autonomously craft rules (e.g., Quebec’s self-designed French-language protections in Canada).Overlapping Jurisdiction: Multiple governing authorities coexist in the same geographic space (e.g., Geneva, Switzerland, governed concurrently by municipal, cantonal, federal, and international rules). Self-Organization: Communities negotiate internal management rules (e.g., Ostrom’s study of Filipino farmers designing irrigation allocation systems). Nested Rule Systems: Rules connect hierarchically from community agreements to international treaties (e.g., the EU’s Charter of Regional Languages protects minority tongues without clashing with national constitutions).The risk of polycentric governance is power fragmentation, which Ostrom counters by stressing the need for “meta-rules” to coordinate centers—e.g., South Africa’s Constitution (Section 41) stipulates that provincial powers must not undermine national unity.
The key to governing diverse nations lies in transcending traditional binary oppositions through institutional design. Existing federal systems (e.g., the U.S., Switzerland) can accommodate diversity within a unified framework, but uneven power distribution often hampers their effectiveness. A third way—polycentric autonomous zones—could involve flexibly establishing autonomous regions based on the cultural and economic needs of different areas and ethnic groups, without undermining national sovereignty or constitutional integrity. Technologies like blockchain voting could enable direct democratic participation, avoiding the extremes of centralization and fragmentation.A proximate success story exists: Spain’s Basque region operates under a “fiscal compact,” retaining 90% of its tax revenue and autonomously managing expenditures, resulting in a per capita GDP 33% above the national average.
States could legislate to permit culturally distinct communities to form relatively independent autonomous zones—where they implement their preferred administrative, judicial, and customary traditions—without violating national sovereignty. Simultaneously, these groups must refrain from imposing their traditions on areas that do not recognize them, preventing national division and ethnic conflict while safeguarding cultural diversity and compatibility.
For example, through legislation and public referenda or assemblies, specific areas in Britain (e.g., neighborhoods, towns, or counties) could be designated Muslim autonomous zones, where Muslims could apply Sharia law locally. However, they should not forcibly proselytize or harass in areas designated as non-Muslim, nor demand Sharia’s application there. In the U.S., beyond the existing 50 states, autonomous zones could be established for Asians, African Americans, Latinos, or even LGBTQ communities, transgender groups, or communist enclaves—provided they adhere to the law, respect national sovereignty, and do not infringe on the rights of those outside their zones who reject their ideologies. Such regional and ethnic autonomy offers humanity a universal, in-depth opportunity to test the feasibility, strengths, and weaknesses of their beliefs. In the long run, backward or anti-civilizational elements will inevitably falter in competition, while rivalry among cultural groups will powerfully propel human civilization forward.
4. Conclusion and Outlook
Historical logic reveals that the contest between imperial and independent models stems from humanity’s dual needs for power and identity. Britain’s failure, Rome’s transformation, and China’s cycles demonstrate that no single model endures. The Trump administration’s predicament extends this logic into the modern era—its policies, neither innovative nor a full return to history, amount to a stopgap measure.
The feasibility of a third way hinges on finding a balance between technological progress and ideological evolution. No mature alternative has yet emerged globally, but refining federalism, fostering transnational cooperation, and leveraging technological governance offer potential paths. The challenge lies in the need for foresight beyond short-term political interests—a resource that remains acutely scarce in today’s world.
评论
发表评论