Reconfiguring Imperial Legacies: A Framework for Postcolonial Statehood Narratives

Thesis Abstract

This study addresses how postcolonial statehood narratives in former imperial spaces are reconfigured to contest inherited legacies of governance, law, and national identity, and how these narratives influence state-building trajectories in the twenty-first century. The problem centers on the persistence of imperial-era frameworks in constitutional design, constitutionalism, education, and public memory, which constrains autonomous nation-building and reinforces external power asymmetries. The aim is to develop a robust theoretical framework—the Postcolonial Statehood Narratives Framework (PSNF)—that explicates mechanisms through which postcolonial societies reinterpret imperial legacies and translates these reinterpretations into contemporary statehood practices. Specific objectives are (1) to map divergent postcolonial narrativities across three case-study contexts—Nigeria, India, and the Philippines—whose imperial experiences diverge yet exhibit convergent state-building challenges; (2) to identify discursive repertoires, including constitutional rhetoric, educational curricula, and monumentality, that reframe legitimacy and sovereignty; (3) to test the PSNF’s propositions against empirical data to assess the salience of memory-work, legal transplants, and regionalism in shaping state formation; (4) to assess policy implications for inclusive constitutional design and postcolonial diplomacy; and (5) to propose a methodologically explicit toolkit for future comparativist work on imperial legacies. Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed-methods design anchored in critical theory and postcolonial historiography, drawing on a purposive sample of national-level documents, elite interviews, and public opinion datasets. The population comprises constitutional texts, policy papers, and education curricula produced between 1950 and 2020, complemented by 60 semi-structured interviews with constitutional scholars, policymakers, and civil society actors (20 per case) and 2,000 survey respondents representative of age, region, and education in each country. Data collection instruments include a coding scheme for narrative elements within constitutions and curricula, interview guides focused on perceived legitimacy and sovereignty, and a standardized public opinion questionnaire. Validity and reliability are ensured through triangulation, intercoder reliability checks (Cohen’s kappa > 0.80), and pilot testing of instruments. The study employs thematic analysis for qualitative data, complemented by content analysis of legal texts; for quantitative strands, multiple regression analysis and hierarchical linear modeling assess the relationship between exposure to specific narratives and perceptions of state legitimacy, controlling for socioeconomic variables. A conceptual model—the PSNF—posits that memory-work, legal transplant practices, and regionalist imaginaries mediate the relationship between imperial legacies and contemporary statehood legitimacies. Key findings are expected to reveal that postcolonial narratives Carve legitimate sovereignty by reframing imperial institutions as selectable legacies rather than immutable determinants; that constitutional rhetoric frequently negotiates between universal rights and local customary norms, producing hybrid constitutional arrangements; and that curricula act as critical arenas where colonial memory is selectively remixed to legitimize inclusive national imagined communities. The analysis anticipates discernible differences among the three case studies in the prominence of memory-work versus legal transplantation, with Nigeria prioritizing memory-based legitimacy, India emphasizing constitutional pluralism, and the Philippines leveraging regional defences against external influence. The study also anticipates that higher exposure to critical historiography correlates with stronger support for inclusive pluralistic governance and more cautious attitudes toward external power imbalances. The contribution to knowledge lies in (a) delivering a theoretically situated framework—PSNF—that clarifies how postcolonial states recast imperial legacies into instruments of contemporary statehood; (b) providing a comparative, empirically grounded understanding of how memory, law, and regionalism interact to shape legitimacy and sovereignty; and (c) offering an actionable toolkit for policymakers and scholars aiming to design inclusive constitutional reforms, memory institutions, and education policies that strengthen autonomous postcolonial governance. The main conclusion posits that postcolonial statehood narratives are not merely reactive but generative, capable of constructing resilient state apparatuses when memory-work, legal transplantation, and regional imaginaries are aligned toward inclusive sovereignty. Recommendations include institutionalizing memory diversification in national museums and curricula, adopting selective legal transplants that respect pluralism, and fostering regional platforms that de-emphasize external hegemonies while promoting shared regional frameworks for sovereignty. Suggestions for further research include expanding the comparative scope to additional postcolonial contexts and examining digital memory architectures’ role in statehood narrative formation.