In the last two decades, Latin American decolonial theory emerged as a new field of critical engagement with colonialism and modernity. With its strong critique of postcolonial studies and Eurocentric approaches, decolonial thought also challenges many logics of global history, namely the Anglo-Saxon-centric research design, the Western university system, and the missing inclusion of non-Western epistemologies. The paper aims at exploring the main points of decolonial theory, among others “coloniality of power” (Aníbal Quijano) and “decoloniality” (Catherine Walsh), and evaluates to what extent they can enrich global history. While the main historical interpretation of decolonial theory remains limited to structuralist Marxism and World System Theory and falls behind the complexity of the history of global entanglements, decolonial theory can be useful for expanding global history’s engagement with global power relations (also concerning gender) and inherent research logics. In particular, the decolonial claim to include non-Western epistemologies and engage in horizontal dialogues with different loci of enunciation could be a solution to uncage global history from its linguistic and epistemological confinements and allow for truly global histories.

The paper reviews current trends in African studies and historiography that challenge the unjust traditions, prejudices and exclusion inherent in the colonial legacy, and seek ways to restore the distorted image of the continent. It considers how best to achieve cultural decolonization that reconciles modernity with African ideas, traditions and institutions of development. The paper takes the position that true independence for Africa will only begin with the decolonization of the continent’s history and visions of development; that independence goes beyond the removal of colonial administrations, and Africans taking over merely as gatekeepers of the colonial heritage. African knowledge systems and institutions continue to be undervalued because of the dominance of Eurocentric mindsets and practices. The call for decolonization seeks an alternative model of development that tries to indigenze modernity, and domesticate globalization; a model that tries to integrate the traditional knowledge and institutions of local communities in the continent; a model that seeks to re-center Africa, to reshape power relations, redress past inequalities, and renegotiate new partnerships with the former colonial powers, and with the new global powers –on terms that ensure that Africa regains control over its politics and resources. This decolonization movement is now complemented by growing decolonial activism such as the Rhodes-Must-Fall epistemic revolts in Southern Africa, and the agitation for the restoration of priceless African artifacts and other items of Africa’s rich cultural heritage plundered during the colonial period.

In an era characterized by profound global political and existential anxieties, pondering the historiography of what is called “Islamic political thought” holds considerable significance. As the most ubiquitous signifier of any political thought tradition in the histories of Muslims, this locution has been functioning as a dynamic of hyper-religionization of intellectual history, which has resulted in the marginalization of otherwise vibrant world-historically significant thought traditions. My contention here is not that “Islamic political thought” does not exist. On the contrary, it feels a concrete reality today. It functions as a framing idea that has shaped sociopolitical practice and historical memory, a program pursued by political movements and governments, and an academic field. Despite of its aura and ubiquitous use, however, it remains an invented idea, much like the appellations Islamic city and Islamic society, whose history must be accounted for. By calling to question both the colonial European antiquarian and its mirror image Islamist monumental historical narratives, this article aims to expose the connection between power and knowledge and contribute to rewriting the history of political thought in the Nile to Oxus region from a critical perspective One way to decolonize our thinking about the present without advantaging xenophobic nativism is a rereading of the historical archive from a perspectives that concerns itself with constitutionalism, the rule of law, checks and balances on power, and political participation. This paper discusses how since the eighth century, Muslim intellectuals elaborated two distinct discourses of politics: the imamate, which may be characterized as the religious governance of the ulema, and the secular politics of lay bureaucrat literati elaborated in the discursive tradition of siyasa. Each one of these foundational political and ethical positions constituted and represented the caliphate in a distinct way, authorized a differing conception of political power, shaped dissimilar political subjects, and enabled divergent ways of living. The present paper thus challenges Eurocentric and modern binaries of the secular and spiritual and opens new avenues of research in the history of political thought.

Five empires in Eurasia are related by history, structure, space, and time: the Qing (1636-1912), Mughal (1526-1857), Ottoman (1299-1922), Safavid (1501-1736), and Russian (1480-1917) empires, founded on the Chinggised empire’s (c.1206-1368) remains. Although they were long-lasting, extremely large political entities with highly diverse populations, dividing three quarters of the Eurasian continent between themselves, they have largely been excluded from historical theory formation so far. It is therefore meaningful to explore these empires’ entangled histories to develop new frameworks of historiographical reference and thus facilitate a paradigm shift in global history. In my individual paper, I will introduce a new research project that uses the five empires as significant and comparable research objects for the 16th-18th centuries. The main ambition of the project is to write against historiographical norms in global empire studies. These norms are, firstly, a general tendency to turn towards European empires as cases of comparison and, secondly, the global application of theories that have been developed from European cases. The project aims at a decolonisation of historical theory and finally the development of new theories.The research project will focus on concepts and strategies of rulership. How did ruling elites conceptualise rulership, how did they integrate their diverse populations? What concepts of rulership did the conquered peoples discuss? I will present how I intend to develop innovative approaches to de-centre and de-colonise historical studies and to suggest new historical theories that have the potential to be applicable to other empires in Eurasia and beyond