Appeals to “community” and to “the common” have become increasingly frequent in political thought. In this chapter, I focus on some of the reasons for the appearance of such appeals in the landscape of contemporary political thought. This chapter also highlights some of the uncanny intellectual links across the entire political spectrum, from European post-Marxist and American communitarian philosophers to the public intellectuals of the neofascist “New Right.” These links emerge and play out in a broader intellectual field that is shaped both by the political economy of Western Europe and North America after 1945 and by the failure to address the obvious shortcomings and negative effects of this political economy. Against this broader background, current appeals to community in political thought can be seen as a response to the lived experience of neoliberal capitalism, which has led to a legitimation crisis of liberal constitutional democracy. But I am also going to suggest that appeals to community invariably tend to drift into an antidemocratic direction.

Chapter 1 opens with the question of how to achieve normative legitimacy of the state (legitimation). How does the state become accepted and expected by a population to be the arbitrator of their collective life? The chapter reviews legitimation crises in Iraq at four key historical junctures: the foundational moment in 1921, the 1958 revolutionary coup d’etat, and the 1990s in the lead-up to the post-2003 state. Drawing on the work of Iraqi sociologist and public intellectual Ali al-Wardi, this chapter argues that legitimation of a state’s ruling principles (normative legitimation) is linked to a state’s ability to address social injustice. Furthermore, social injustice is intrinsic to any state order. A robust democracy is the only reliable mechanism through which to uncover the nature of injustice – and ways of addressing it – at any given time and space, and thereby avoid a legitimation crisis.

The Introduction opens with a (personal) precursor to the writing of the book. It discusses the methodological, normative, and theoretical basis of the book. It offers an overview of the argument and the chapters, and outlines sources employed in the research.

This chapter explains the Mughal and Qing empires’ diverging fates over the eighteenth century, owing to variations in their ability to accommodate cultural diversity over the course of territorial expansion. The Mughal Empire failed to extend its regime of syncretic incorporation as it expanded into the Deccan, prefiguring imperial overstretch, a legitimation crisis and subsequent decline. Conversely, the Manchus extended their diversity regime of segregated incorporation as they conquered vast new territories on the Eurasian steppe. The resulting divergence opened up opportunities for the East India Company’s later rise in India, even while continued Manchu dynamism limited Western expansion in mainland East Asia. The chapter proceeds as follows. The first section sketches the Mughal Empire’s fall, canvassing existing explanations for its decline, before advancing an alternative account in the second section. The third and fourth sections then respectively narrate and explain the Manchu Empire’s further expansion during the eighteenth century. The fifth section reviews the legacies of these empires’ divergent trajectories in shaping their respective regions’ subsequent evolution.