By Keith Preston May 1, 2025

The global history of imperialism and colonial domination is often framed through the lens of despotism and monarchy, with attention typically directed toward absolutist regimes and autocrats who engaged in conquest and territorial expansion. However, a closer examination reveals that bourgeois republican governments—those ostensibly founded on liberal, democratic, and constitutional principles—have often been equally, if not more, brutal in their colonial and imperial endeavors. From the French Third Republic to the United States and the Dutch Republic, liberal democracies have consistently pursued exploitative and violent imperialist projects under the banner of progress, civilization, and commerce. This essay explores how and why bourgeois republics have matched or exceeded monarchies and dictatorships in their use of violence, coercion, and domination abroad, focusing on structural and ideological factors that sustained their imperial systems.

I. The Ideological Mask of Liberal Imperialism

One of the distinguishing features of bourgeois republics was their use of Enlightenment and liberal rhetoric to justify colonial domination. In contrast to monarchies, which often relied on dynastic claims or religious missions, republican empires framed their actions as part of a global civilizing project. The “mission civilisatrice” of the French Third Republic, for example, asserted that France had a moral duty to bring enlightenment and rational governance to “less advanced” societies. The paradox of a republic claiming to liberate while it simultaneously enslaved and exploited millions in Algeria, Indochina, and West Africa highlights a core contradiction within liberal imperialism: the use of universalist ideals to perpetuate deeply unequal and racialized systems of control.

Similarly, the United States, despite its revolutionary origins in anti-colonial struggle, quickly became a powerful imperial state. While it lacked formal colonies for much of the 19th century, its expansion across the North American continent—through the genocide of Native Americans, the annexation of Mexico’s northern territories, and the subjugation of Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines—demonstrates that republican forms of government did not preclude violent conquest and exploitation. American exceptionalism often served to mask these realities, presenting imperial ventures as benign or even benevolent.

II. Structural Continuities: Empire Beyond Regime Type

Regardless of whether a state was a monarchy, dictatorship, or republic, the underlying logic of empire was economic exploitation, racial hierarchy, and geopolitical control. The structural imperatives of capitalism required access to land, labor, and resources, while the construction of racial ideologies helped justify the subjugation of colonized peoples.

In many cases, republics were more efficient imperial managers than monarchies. The bureaucratized nature of liberal regimes allowed for more systematic extraction of wealth and control of subject populations. For example, in French West Africa, the French Republic imposed forced labor regimes and demanded military conscription from its African colonies, all while denying basic political rights. The system of “indigénat” (native code) legally codified racial discrimination and allowed administrators to imprison or fine colonial subjects without trial.

The United States, governed by elected officials and framed by constitutional rule, likewise developed a sophisticated imperial state apparatus. During the Philippine-American War (1899–1902), U.S. forces committed atrocities on a massive scale—employing torture, burning villages, and establishing concentration camps. Estimates suggest over 200,000 Filipino civilians died during this counterinsurgency campaign. President William McKinley described American rule as a divine mandate to “Christianize and civilize” the Philippines, illustrating how liberal and religious narratives were weaponized to legitimize brutal policies.

III. Case Studies in Comparative Brutality

The French Third Republic vs. Monarchic Colonialism

Under the Third Republic, France engaged in wars of conquest in Tunisia (1881), Madagascar (1895), and Morocco (1912). In Algeria, colonized since 1830 but administered by republican governments, settler colonialism displaced indigenous populations, imposed harsh economic systems, and practiced systematic racial segregation. During the Sétif and Guelma massacres of 1945, French troops killed an estimated 15,000 to 45,000 Algerians protesting colonial rule—one of the worst atrocities in modern French history. These massacres were not aberrations but the product of long-standing republican colonial governance that dehumanized its subjects.

U.S. Republican Empire vs. Monarchical Colonialism

While European monarchies like Britain and Belgium carried out horrendous abuses—particularly in King Leopold II’s Congo Free State, where millions died due to forced labor and mutilation—the U.S. under republican rule developed its own imperial violence with comparable cruelty. After taking control of the Philippines in 1898, U.S. forces conducted a brutal pacification campaign marked by massacres like the Balangiga Massacre, where entire villages were annihilated. This was not an act of tyranny by a king but policy enacted by a republic with popular support.

Furthermore, the United States conducted repeated military interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean throughout the 20th century—occupying Haiti (1915–1934), the Dominican Republic (1916–1924), and Nicaragua (1912–1933)—to protect U.S. corporate interests and suppress leftist movements. These operations, often under the guise of promoting democracy or stability, propped up dictators and undermined national sovereignty, revealing the deeply imperial nature of U.S. republican governance.

Dutch Republic and Indonesia

The Dutch Republic and later liberal Dutch governments maintained colonial control over Indonesia for centuries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, liberal administrations intensified resource extraction through systems like the Cultivation System, forcing peasants to grow cash crops for export under brutal conditions. Following World War II, when Indonesia declared independence, Dutch republican governments waged a bloody war (1945–1949) to regain control, killing an estimated 100,000 Indonesians. Again, this was not the work of monarchs or fascists but liberal politicians supported by a parliamentary republic.

IV. The Rationalization of Violence

What distinguishes republican imperialism is often the bureaucratic rationalization and ideological dissonance surrounding its violence. In monarchies and dictatorships, repression was often overt and justified as an expression of sovereign or autocratic will. In republics, however, violence was couched in legalism, liberal universalism, or humanitarian intervention. The contradiction between domestic democracy and overseas domination created a unique form of imperial hypocrisy.

For instance, the British Empire, while a constitutional monarchy, increasingly governed through elected bodies and liberal ideology by the 19th century. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was met with reprisals involving mass hangings, village burnings, and public executions. Later famines in India during British rule—especially under Winston Churchill during WWII—were exacerbated by deliberate policy choices that prioritized British war needs over Indian lives.

Similarly, the United States’ use of terms like “liberation,” “manifest destiny,” or “nation-building” has often served to obscure the realities of military occupation, regime change, and economic domination. In this way, the institutional sophistication and moral vocabulary of liberal republics often made their imperialism more insidious.

V. Dictatorships and Hyper-Violent Empire

While the focus of this essay is on republics, it is important to acknowledge that dictatorships—especially ideologically totalitarian ones—have committed atrocities of unparalleled scale. Nazi Germany’s colonial ambitions in Eastern Europe, inspired by Lebensraum, resulted in the Holocaust and the deaths of tens of millions. Fascist Italy under Mussolini waged genocidal wars in Libya and Ethiopia, using chemical weapons and mass executions. These regimes often sought outright extermination or enslavement, unlike most liberal republics which, though brutal, often stopped short of genocide as formal policy (with important exceptions, such as Native American displacement).

Yet, republics and dictatorships have at times collaborated or shared methods. France and Britain both employed fascist collaborators in their colonies, and the U.S. often supported dictatorships abroad to protect its own imperial interests, such as in Chile, Iran, and Vietnam.

Conclusion

The historical evidence demonstrates that bourgeois republican governments have often matched or surpassed monarchies and dictatorships in their imperial violence, albeit under different pretenses. While monarchies and dictatorships may have engaged in more openly authoritarian or genocidal practices, republican empires operated with bureaucratic efficiency, moral self-righteousness, and systemic exploitation that allowed them to dominate large portions of the globe for centuries. Far from being a safeguard against imperial brutality, republican institutions have frequently served as enablers—masking conquest with claims of civilization, democracy, or free markets.

Understanding the shared legacy of empire across regime types is essential not only for historical accuracy but for dismantling persistent myths that equate democracy with peace and justice. The brutal histories of France, the United States, the Netherlands, and Britain show that imperialism is not a feature of one form of government but a consequence of power, capital, and racial hierarchy operating through any political structure.

References

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). Verso.

Borstelmann, T. (2005). The Cold War and the color line: American race relations in the global arena. Harvard University Press.

Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton University Press.

Churchill, W. (2004). Kill the Indian, save the man: The genocidal impact of American Indian residential schools. City Lights Books.

Cooper, F. (2005). Colonialism in question: Theory, knowledge, history. University of California Press.

Fanon, F. (2004). The wretched of the Earth (R. Philcox, Trans.). Grove Press. (Original work published 1961)

Getz, T. R. (2004). African voices on colonialism. Waveland Press.

Hoganson, K. L. (1998). Fighting for American manhood: How gender politics provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. Yale University Press.

Kramer, P. A. (2006). The blood of government: Race, empire, the United States, and the Philippines. University of North Carolina Press.

LeCour Grandmaison, O. (2006). Coloniser, exterminer: Sur la guerre et l’État colonial. Fayard.

Mazower, M. (2008). Hitler’s empire: How the Nazis ruled Europe. Penguin.

Moses, A. D. (Ed.). (2008). Empire, colony, genocide: Conquest, occupation, and subaltern resistance in world history. Berghahn Books.

Robinson, C. J. (2000). Black Marxism: The making of the Black radical tradition. University of North Carolina Press.

Said, E. W. (1994). Culture and imperialism. Vintage.

Stoler, A. L. (2002). Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Race and the intimate in colonial rule. University of California Press.

Thomas, M. (2012). The French empire between the wars: Imperialism, politics and society. Manchester University Press.

Todorov, T. (1999). The conquest of America: The question of the other. University of Oklahoma Press.

Weber, E. (1976). Peasants into Frenchmen: The modernization of rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford University Press.