Authored By: Realeboha Ditshwane
University of the Witwatersrand
I. Introduction
Throughout history, powerful states have sought to expand and maintain their influence through military strength, economic control, and political dominance. This phenomenon is often associated with imperialism, a system in which stronger states exercise power over weaker territories or nations in ways that advance their own interests.1 However, the concept of imperialism remains highly contested because there are differing views on whether global dominance is necessary for national security or whether it inevitably results in exploitation and inequality. Some argue that strong military power is essential for protecting a country from external threats and preserving its influence in international relations. Others contend that an excessive focus on military dominance often comes at the expense of the welfare of ordinary citizens, leading to economic hardship, social instability, and dissatisfaction within the state itself.
The tension between external dominance and internal welfare raises an important political and moral question: whether states should prioritise military power and international influence, or whether they should focus primarily on the wellbeing of their citizens. At the same time, history provides examples of leaders who appeared to balance state strength with internal prosperity. One such example is Queen Amina of Zaria, a pre-colonial African ruler renowned for her military strategy, territorial expansion, and political influence. This paper therefore explores the relationship between imperialism, military dominance, state security, and citizen welfare. It argues that while strong states require security and influence to survive in an increasingly competitive international system, the pursuit of dominance should not occur at the expense of the dignity, welfare, and legitimacy of the people within the state or those subjected to its influence. Ultimately, the ethical exercise of power depends not merely on dominance itself, but on how that dominance is used and whether it contributes to both stability and human wellbeing.
II. The Effects of Imperialism on Citizens
A. The Promotion of Welfare and Internal Stability
When a country flourishes — both internally and externally — the tax revenue collected from the public is directed towards meeting the needs of its citizens.2 These funds are channelled towards the maintenance of infrastructure, sanitation, education, healthcare, and other essential services.3 Inevitably, when a proper plan is in place to uphold the interests of the people, more opportunities emerge for citizens.4 There will be greater job opportunities; people will have access to improved healthcare services; diseases related to improper sanitation will be reduced; and there will be improved access to socio-economic rights.5 Consequently, the gap between the rich and the poor will diminish.6 A stable country with proper infrastructure attracts foreign investment, and the resulting revenue flows back into the economy, enabling further improvements that benefit citizens. Exports and imports will increase.
Furthermore, the need for the privatisation of basic needs diminishes as the country becomes able to provide for its citizens directly.7 The citizens will not be entirely dependent on State resources.8 Not only will people benefit immensely from the absence of exploitative imperialism, but they will also no longer be forced into the agonising choice between maintaining their dignity and securing their wellbeing. Consider the case of James Verone,9 who suffered from chronic health problems but could not afford medical treatment.10 He found himself in an impossible position and ultimately committed the crime of robbing a bank — for the sum of one dollar — in order to be arrested.11 He knew he would receive proper medical treatment in prison that he could never afford as an ordinary citizen.12 It is deeply disheartening that citizens find themselves in such dire circumstances while those they voted into office continue to live healthy and comfortable lives.
B. The Negative Effects of Imperialism on Citizens
When an imperialist system is put in place, what follows is that citizens — especially the working class — suffer enormously. Basic needs become a luxury. What is even more heartbreaking is that as inflation rises, salaries and wages remain stagnant. The national debts incurred in maintaining the military lead to the withdrawal of essential services from the populace.13 Consequently, the standard of living of ordinary people declines.14 The elites who hold power protect this system because they benefit from it.15 Legislation frequently shields elites and their unlawful operations.16 The general public’s needs are not prioritised — the interests of the elites invariably override those of ordinary citizens.17 Moreover, free trade regimes tend to prioritise property rights over all other rights.18 Since elites hold and control most private property,19 this means they have the power to patent even natural resources such as seeds.20 As a result, the populace is left working on terms dictated by the elites.21 More often than not, those terms are not in the best interests of the people.22
Moreover, states sometimes escape their internal problems by initiating unnecessary wars with other nations.23 Instead of attending to citizens’ pleas, public funds are redirected toward military research and development.24 To put it bluntly, the state takes money from citizens who are in desperate need of it through taxation25 and uses it to manufacture deadly weapons to deploy against human beings in other states.26 What is deeply ironic is that laws are put in place domestically to prevent “an eye for an eye,”27 yet the very state that prohibits the use of force internally proceeds to attack other states unprovoked. It is submitted that the state not only deprives its citizens of basic needs, but also increasingly micromanages their lives.28 The claim that the state invests so heavily in military defence in order to protect its citizens is therefore questionable.29 What exactly are citizens being protected from, given that international law exists to regulate disputes between states? While it is true that international law may not carry the same enforcement weight as domestic law, it is routinely undermined by dominant countries. States cannot achieve total harmony because they operate under different laws and vastly unequal power dynamics. This is hypocritical: citizens are expected to resolve their differences through legal channels, yet states themselves refuse to be bound by similar obligations.
III. State Security and Imperialism
A. The Benefits of Military Dominance and Global Influence
The state must invest in its military to protect its interests.30 The rationale for prioritising the military is straightforward — to maintain the system of imperialism and the geopolitical advantages it confers.31 The funds for sustaining such a system are drawn, among other sources, from the pockets of citizens in the form of taxation.32 33 That revenue is directed toward the resources the military requires,34 and extensive research is conducted to ensure that the country maintains its defensive edge over rival states.35 This ensures that the country is not susceptible to ambushes — it is always on guard to protect its interests. Military dominance also gives imperialist countries significantly more leverage in international negotiations. Such states seldom engage in peaceful negotiations that genuinely weigh the interests of all parties involved.36 As a result, the dominant country’s interests are always upheld.37
Moreover, a dominant country has the capacity to bypass international law and sanction states that seek to challenge it.38 A practical illustration of this is the ongoing diplomatic tension between South Africa and the United States of America.39 America is more dominant than South Africa, which is precisely why it commands greater leverage in international relations. A dominant country creates conditions that constrain weaker countries, forcing them to operate within a narrow set of choices — choices that are invariably designed to serve the dominant country’s interests. The cost of resisting such a dominant country often exceeds the cost of compliance, which is why most states ultimately acquiesce. It is therefore critical for a state to sustain its military capacity, as this ensures it can retain its dominance and extract benefit from international relationships. In essence, the military is a vital instrument for protecting a country’s position in the international order.40 The more dominant a country is, the lower the probability that it will be challenged.41
B. Weakness, Instability, and International Vulnerability
When a country is non-imperialistic, it is generally regarded as weaker on the international stage.42 It becomes susceptible to aggression from dominant countries, particularly when it begins to flourish independently.43 More often than not, countries that rely on their own natural resources are less dependent on dominant powers.44 Dominant countries oppose this, as they seek to exploit these resources for their own benefit.45 As a result, they deploy every possible tactic to undermine and destabilise such states,46 with the goal of reversing whatever progress those countries have made.47 This process forces those countries into a position of renewed dependency on dominant states.48 Consequently, they are pushed into what can be described as “debt peonage.”49 If a state resists, it is often subjected to trade sanctions50 that are so punishing they destabilise the country’s entire economy.51 A practical example is the relationship between Cuba and the United States, which led to the severe destabilisation of the Cuban economy.52 Cuba faced some of the highest import-export tonnage costs in the world due to decades of US blockade.53 This was an intentional tactic designed to create internal unrest and render the country unsustainable.54 It is submitted that maintaining a weak military leaves a country vulnerable to precisely these kinds of attacks from dominant powers.
IV. The Paradox of Imperialism and the Welfare of Citizens
Every country has a responsibility to ensure that the welfare of its citizens is prioritised.55 When a country genuinely prioritises the interests of its entire populace — not merely a select few — the result is prosperity and peace within the country.56 On the one hand, the state must ensure that it is protected and that its strategic interests are secured,57 which requires enormous investment in the military to retain its standing internationally.58 As discussed above, it is an exceptionally difficult task to serve both imperatives simultaneously; one always risks being sacrificed for the other.
The state must always uphold the rights of its citizens.59 While this is true, it does not mean that rights will always trump every other consideration. For instance, in South Africa the rights of citizens are not absolute.60 They may only be limited in terms of a law of general application,61 meaning the limitation must apply to everyone, not to a specific individual or group.62 However, notwithstanding the permissibility of such limitation, the state must ensure the limitation is not so prejudicial as to fundamentally undermine citizens’ welfare. At all times, the state must ensure that the dignity of its citizens is upheld63 in any balancing of competing interests. When the state prioritises military power and external dominance over the welfare of its citizens, it risks generating serious internal turmoil. The cycle of over-promising social and economic improvements year after year, without any tangible change, ultimately leads to unrest. Over time, citizens begin to undermine the legitimacy of the state. Nevertheless, the country may retain its international standing and continue to command respect due to its military and geopolitical power. It is evident that a state can appear formidable internationally while simultaneously facing profound dissatisfaction at home.
V. Final Analysis
It is not inherently wrong for a state to be dominant. What is wrong is the abuse of power. It would be far better if states practised domestically what they preach internationally, particularly when it comes to the upholding of laws. States expect citizens to abide by laws even when those laws are detrimental to their wellbeing. It is submitted that states should adhere to international law, observe diplomacy, and pursue peaceful negotiations. A practical example of a dominant state in Africa during the 1600s is the Kingdom of Zazzau — modern-day northern Nigeria — which was ruled by Queen Amina.64 Though hers was not an overtly imperialistic state in the modern sense, Queen Amina’s reign demonstrates that a balance between external security and internal welfare, exercised responsibly, is achievable.
Her dominance was not exploitative in the way modern imperialism tends to be. While she did conquer neighbouring territories and convert them into vassal states, she respected the rulers of those territories.65 The kingdoms were not entirely stripped of governance, dignity, or economic stability.66 While this reflects unequal relations of power, it does not correspond to the predatory logic of modern imperialism. She did not deprive citizens of their basic needs.67 On the contrary, she ensured that her people were protected and well cared for.68
The need for exploitative dominance will diminish if states can genuinely commit to international law. Not only would this reduce unnecessary wars, but it would also reduce national debts. States would no longer need to spend excessively on instruments designed to threaten human life. While it remains important for states to maintain the capacity to defend themselves against unforeseen threats, the focus should not become so skewed toward defence that the populace suffers from the misuse of public funds. It is submitted that over-prioritising the military when no imminent threat exists leads to disastrous outcomes for ordinary citizens. The elites do not bear this burden to the same degree, because the system is structured in their favour. It is the working class that carries the heaviest load. Furthermore, it is reprehensible for dominant states to justify redirecting funds toward military defence while simultaneously manufacturing the very wars that make such expenditure appear necessary.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, this discussion demonstrates that there is a constant tension between maintaining international dominance and protecting the welfare of citizens within a state. International dominance without regard for citizens may produce external respect but internal turmoil. On the other hand, internal prosperity without sufficient security may expose a state to external vulnerability. This illustrates that neither extreme is sustainable on its own. A stable and legitimate state is one that balances external security with internal welfare.
The example of Queen Amina demonstrates the importance of this balance. Her reign reflects how a state may exercise strength, territorial influence, and military power while simultaneously promoting prosperity, trade, and internal stability within the kingdom. Although her rule existed within a different historical and political context from modern imperial systems, it nonetheless illustrates the broader principle that power does not have to be exercised in a purely exploitative manner. The true strength of a state lies not only in its military capability or international influence — it also lies in its ability to uphold the welfare, dignity, and trust of its people while exercising power responsibly.
Reference(S):
Constitution
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Books
Michael Parenti, The Face of Imperialism (Routledge 2016).
Bonny Ibhawoh, Imperialism and Human Rights (State University of New York 2007).
CR Snyman, Snyman’s Criminal Law (SV Hoctor ed., 2020).
Websites
From the Editor’s Desk: Valuing Health and Primary Care – PMC, https://share.google/yjRFrfmESDiDFQw6k (last visited May 13, 2026).
U.S.–South Africa Relations Are on the Brink of Collapse, https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/04/trump-south-africa-tariffs-trade-aid-collapse (last visited May 12, 2026).
Queen Amina of Zaria, https://share.google/B1svoolRidjMO4jTH (last visited May 14, 2026).
