Is colonial rule bound to fail in the long run? Is there something inherently unsustainable about it?

The biggest problem with colonialism [and in bad M&As] is that the people who rule are quite disconnected from people being ruled. That makes them make big policy mistakes leading to large calamities. When such calamities occur, it will be easier for the locals to point to the elephant in the room – the outsider. Rebellions follow from that.

For instance, in British India none of the viceroys sent from Britain were born in India or have had any level of significant experience with India. And none had an intent to settle in India. Given the short term postings – they never bothered to understand India in detail and connect with its people. The viceroys and governor generals lived in fairly secluded, large estates – and disconnected from people’s emotions.

When those in power are disconnected from the subjects, they will not get the right data to make their decisions. This happens not just in the political world, but also in the corporate world. In fact, this one reason why many M&As fail too. The acquiring company treats the company they bought as their colony. This distances them from those doing the work and eventually make stupid decisions. When the acquirer makes a bad decision it rouses an already disgruntled workbase who will then revel.

This is why colonialism is inherently unsustainable. If the colonial power doesn’t merge with the populace [like in India, Indonesia] they eventually face rebellion. If the colonial power becomes one with the populace [such as what happened in Canada and Australia] colonialism naturally vaporizes. In either case, colonialism is unsustainable.