A Globalized World that refutes Political Globalism: The Growth of a Multipolar International Life since 2019
It is relevant to ask after we’ve seen the rise of populism — irrespective of different ideological approaches to political legitimation and representation in the different parts of the world about what actually has happened with the international order. Indeed, we can agree on the point that the world currently lacks realization and enculturation of any disruption that ruptures the status quo. No one can deny this.
While the primaries of global diplomatic imagery, in the international community, i.e., the P5, some of the D9 and some of the third world G20 nations are under either collapse or decline or backlash towards some sectors or perspectives, the world saw the rise of moral, economic and social imagery and reality of certain third world nations, which we cannot ignore them, like we couldn’t do with Steve Jobs. Take Bangladesh, Finland, China, Rwanda and Morocco for instance.
What we saw in the first half of the episode of the 21st century from 2000 to 2010 was merely the consequential ‘elasticization’ of the post-Cold war Global Order. It was inevitable that the conservatives in different nations with their modern approaches might fail after internationalization when they will step up into globalization. It is becoming truer in the moral and political sense that the United States is no longer the leader of a frail and less frank 'free' world. We have seen a balance of soft power more relevant to that of hard power between India and China in the East, while seeing the rise of an Inverted Legitimacy, which even if does not free Pakistan, Turkey, Russian Federation and Iran from their antagonist and violative approaches in past disputes and conflicts, we are seeing them grow their own domain at the verge of a risk, where the West (I regard here the approach of S Jaishankar, India’s MEA, where I do not think the West in a geographical sense, but in a sense of alliances and relations) itself has been affected. And this isn’t just the backlashes to the Westernization of the world or the overly condemned 'Western culture’, but it is much about understanding how we need to form a global order, where ethnocentric attitudes do not moralise our need to innovate and growth. The Goldilocks approach to the Third World Nations by the European and American West won’t be accepted anymore by nation-states and thus, it is good to have a different approach towards an identity-respected world order.
A Criticism of Noah Harari’s Proposition of a Multipolar Globalized World Order
I agree with Yuval Noah Harari on the issue that we have become multipolar and the liberal and rule-based international order is at the brink of collapse in years. Or maybe it won’t be a collapse but a significant change. It is a creative proposition to affirm a fusion and not a hollow combination of national identity and the ethos of globalization. Globalism and cosmopolitanism will be challenged, because some portions on the world have still not recovered from the far-reaching implications of the Cold War era. Some nations still follow the similar pre-Globalization policies, like for example — escalated arms deals and its politics. The way we should address climate change must not be driven by marketing it for a global consensus without even considering the issue with the parties involved towards changing the way development and entrepreneurship works for nation-states. One of the best arguments over the same to seek is when Vladimir Putin criticized Greta Thurnberg for her blunt speech at the United Nations this September. He wasn’t wrong to say that developing and underdeveloped nations cannot lag themselves behind. After all — they have to approach the common way in the economics of development by its ethos and not by its trends. Trends can always be changed and directed — and that is a good point. Anyways, if we understand the issue of a multipolar global world order, then it is necessary to determine that for the next 20–40 years, we have to see a conflict between the nationalists and the non-nationalists, as already once expressed by VK Krishna Menon, former Indian PM Nehru’s Chief Foreign Policy Advisor. It is okay to stir and catalyse the reactions of globalization to stir, mature and prioritize national interests, and that is a good and sensible pre-emptive measure that states can express at their will. However, considering the complex nature of the international order, it is integral not to reject globalization. The world wasn’t prepared and the primaries of the alliance states in the West and the East are causing hampering of the order due to their mistakes anyways. Take the the European Union for example. Now, we know that Brexit wasn’t a bad idea because since the trio of François Holland, Angela Merkel and David Cameron once recognized the issues with the institutions of the EU project, and the cleaning problems in the political conservatism of their polities, they sought to solve it. The Brexit Referendum was thus based on UK’s popular voice against the issues in the EU, at least in the sense of ethos.
Now that the world order needs change thanking the populist legitimacy in various nowadays multipolar parts of the world, it has become important to determine the contours of national interests with accepting their individuality and such related interests thereto.
The Fate of the Liberal Order: Are We Getting Illiberal by Political Orders?
Well, answering this question in the subtitle is a bit tricky, because even if the world has become multipolar, the fears of fascism among scholars and the arisen conception of the binary collisions between the political left and the political right have shown:
- That the clarity in determining the sides, by observing whether they are really for the left or the right is non-existent. Populism has become a communication strategy and so it is untrue to say that only the right-wing leaders are enjoying it. The Left and the Liberals aren’t behind the Right;
- That it may become redundant to attribute a perfect political right or left or liberal for determining political opinion — and this is not just because of the fact that public opinion is a complex machine with complexed dimensions, but because anything can become an identity-oriented factor these days, which itself is digital, immaterial and countable these days. There is a rising fragility in the public in many populist democracies regarding a classical approach of vote-bank because we have now started to connect ourselves with the digital ethos of cyberspace by changing the way politics should work. And the best example to refer here is the galaxy of Social Media itself, because it’s too fragmented on this;
- Nationalism and patriotism, as concepts are never blurred in terms of scholarly understanding and are interchangeable in usage. However, as the political wings are blurring, keeping their ideological faction as mere hollow substance of idea and not that of a institutional permanence in the sense of the classical liberal approaches to politics. Take the role of Boris Johnson in Brexit for example. The unlawful prorogation of the UK Parliament was not just unlawful, but by ethos, as the UK Supreme Court said, was wrecking and a shocking imperative to the machinery of the Parliament itself. In the US, as well to exemplify, this is serious that the White House does not want to cooperate over the impeachment probe against the POTUS. In India, also for example, there is a case, where even when the elections are over, the Election Commission of India has still kept the polled data provisional in counting, which is serious. If you wish to hint at Europe, then PiS in Poland and Erdogan’s AKP in Turkey might also be a good example to understand:
- Argumentative and reflective issues, such as artificial intelligence, climate change, income inequality, development and others are made polarizing issues or at least tried to be made, which makes everything in notion to be addressed in politics overimposed and limited to partisan dynamics, which is sad;
- If the transaction of political issues transpire and fertilize within and from partisan cadres and blocs, the people will relinquish their basic rights, which itself is an equivalent of inverted totalitarianism, and the most terrible example of such a mess is the United States, because it lacks to be a true republic and democracy. The politics therein is bipartisan and this bipoly has already weakened American consciousness;
- We should remember that pluralism in identity representation is a good thing, because we are encouraging diversity, and when such diversity is regulated with a liberal transpiration and fertilization of political issues, it does not remain bipartisan anymore. And when such diversity is in public opinion in its own isomorphism, people change the way trends are assessed, and then we will be forced by heart to be monolithic in approach towards the incumbency of trends anymore. In short, we are trying to make democracy instrumental instead of barely and ruthlessly procedural by nature. That itself can be done by cleaning and decontaminating the political space of the world, internationally and internally;
While being liberalized while is a technical & sacrosanct systemization of us, being a libertarian is all about the substantive centrism to let that sacred system work while we think in those attitudes and generalize ourselves in submission to the order we ourselves created. It is a grave mistake as well that proceduralists believe in a morally controlled order, which I ethically disagree. Instrumentality itself — can be the operant and substantive progeny of better democracies across the globe. So in short, we need to just think proper and not just common.