Chapter 6 provides an analysis of the impact of diasporic state-building and its legacy for Iraq, asking what kind of state the diaspora helped to build. Analysing the effects of elite and civil society mobilisation shows how the legacy of diasporic state-building is still felt today and how it has shaped the relationship between state and society in significant ways. This chapter also briefly explores differences in diasporic mobilisation for state-building over time between the United Kingdom and Sweden. With each political period during Iraq’s nascent democracy, opportunities shifted and were reinforced by homeland political dynamics. Charting diasporic state-building over time underscores the patterns and trends that have emerged within the diasporic transnational field to reveal the hegemonic identities, actors, and movements being shaped between Iraq and the diaspora. This two-way transnational flow not only creates attachments, allegiances and loyalties but also has significant implications for the future of the Iraqi state and the Iraqi nation. Finally, the chapter briefly explores the transnationalism of second-generation Iraqis and their commitment to Iraq. It investigates the effects of events in Iraq on their identities and senses of belonging, as well as political transnationalism towards the country.

This chapter discusses the variety of modernist theatrical practices grouped under the rubric ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ by Martin Esslin in the 1960s and demonstrates that absurdist theatre was a much more politically attuned and transnational phenomenon than commonly acknowledged. Esslin’s original aim was to understand theatrical practices in France that were related to, but stood outside of, the boundaries and timelines of the symbolist and surrealist movements, in particular the work of Samuel Beckett, Eugène Ionesco, Arthur Adamov, and Jean Genet. The chapter sets French absurdist drama of the 1950s and 1960s in a wider historical context and calls for the better recognition of a global absurdist canon, tracing the blossoming of a new absurdist drama through playwrights including Virgilio Piñera (Cuba), Halide Edib (Turkey), Issam Mahfouz (Lebanon), Osvaldo Dragún (Argentina), Kobo Abe (Japan), Yusuf Idris and Tawfiq al-Hakim (Egypt), and through the contemporary legacies of Beckett’s absurdist model.

The social movement field developed around domestic contention, but as globalization and internationalization proceeded, different forms of transnational contention developed. This has taken two main forms – the creation of transnational NGOs and transnational social movements. The most striking process is transnational diffusion, but two internal processes -- domestication and global framing – and two international processes – externalization and transnational coalition formation – reinforce the transnationalization of social movements.

In this chapter, Melissa Williams begins from the challenge that most contemporary democratic theory is rooted exclusively in Euro-American thought traditions. This is problematic not only for understanding democracy in non-Western contexts but also for crafting democratic theory that can be responsive to globalization. How can a theory of democracy claim global validity if it draws exclusively on Western political experience? The chapter adopts an experimental and playful approach to mapping a strategy of inquiry for deparochializing democratic theory in a global age. It identifies points of contact between contemporary debates over global democracy and forms of contemporary politics that draw on non-Western understandings of the political, focusing on the scales of politics that are most salient for democratic political action: global, state, transnational, and local. The chapter considers three case studies of non-Western conceptions of democracy at these different scales: contemporary Chinese cosmopolitanism (tianxia theory), state-led local democratization in China, and the transnational peasants’ movement, La Vía Campesina. Drawing connections between these cases and the literature on democracy in the global era, the chapter argues that the cases press us toward a transcultural, trans-scalar, translocal, and systemic understanding of democracy’s global potential.