The world has entered an indefinite moment where ‘grand narratives' collapse and new ones are being formed (or unable being form). We live in an era o
The world has entered an indefinite moment where ‘grand narratives' collapse and new ones are being formed (or unable being form). We live in an era of global interregnum, as defined by Gramsci.
This moment is a seismic moment in which the masses have been
estranged from politics and the ‘global
order’ has been roughly shattered.
As geopolitical elements become more fluid in this seismic moment, it is conceivable to predict that security
dilemmas which destroy harmony, will gradually gain ground and
significant breaks will occur in this framework.
We might argue that such a trend has already emerged with the
Ukraine crisis and is spreading.
It is clear that there is a significant ‘geopolitical demand’ for change and transformation, both in the
eyes of the countries and in their interactions. But, what effect does this pressure have on the course of history?
Is the international system being pushed into a new cold war scenario where
countries are "forced to take
sides"? It is too early to provide thorough responses to these
queries.
At the
end of the previous cold war, the liberal
narrative, which purported to have proven itself and did so to some extent,
could no longer create a model that would satisfy/convince the system in its
totality.
While the organic crisis in the social and economic setting
produces an imbalance in scientific and technological progress, this asymmetry
drives countries to move away from systemic acceptance and build their own
course.
As a result, history does not follow a straight line. The only thing that can be stated about history is
that it is chaotic.
Overcoming this uncertainty requires humanity's united effort.
To an endeavour to create a new grand narrative that encompasses all of
humanity.
In the face of all this upheaval, efforts to examine the future
of the world order take on new significance.
We are on the verge of a global disorder. Contemplation from the outside to
the interior, like the "ibar"
referenced in Ibn Khaldun's Kitab al-Ibar, is essential to grasp the
principles, causes, and origins behind the historical sequence depicted by the
facts.
This can be defined simply as an interregnum period. But, of
course, at this point, we must debate whether "hegemony" is a choice within the framework of the global
order, an "inevitable process"
or whether systemic anarchy is an immutable fact.
The manner in which the idea of hegemony is conceptualized in a
global setting is a problem that requires explanation, particularly on a
rational foundation. Global hegemony, which is the product of countries'
material, institutional, and ideological systems expanding and spreading, is
generally consolidated after great ruptures like World War II.
This discussion, in my opinion, should focus on moving beyond
theory and highlighting its relationship to reality, or rather its link to
'practices', rather than debating the strong features of various theories.
Because our attempts to understand the world are historically conditioned. As a
result, the future of the effort to discover what is logically relevant is
equally dependent on our comprehension of the world we are experiencing.
On whatever scale, hegemony is built and maintained through a
combination of material, discursive, institutional, and ambiguous activities.
In fact, according to Gilpin, a global hegemon is viewed as a
guarantor of both national security and environmental security. Within the
context of ‘hegemonic stability theory’,
we might argue that non-hegemonic systems are 'inherently unstable,' so global stability depends on that global
hegemony's ability to stabilize the present global order.
At least,
it is what history tells us.
With the material resources it mobilized after WWII, the United
States had a significant role in the war's outcome. He next attempted to
continue the process by building institutional structures. But, more
importantly, the "hegemonic political/cultural/economic" structure
developed in the global intellectual framework played a significant influence
in the process's operation.
After all, "sustaining" hegemony is more vital than
"constructing" it. Rather than the development of hegemony,
consenting of hegemony and the legitimacy that follows indicates another
crucial process.
Material, institutional, and intellectual hegemony are no longer sufficient. Today, military or economic might not be as important as they formerly were in establishing and maintaining hegemony. One of the difficulties that organizations like the UN and NATO have faced is that the "institutional structure" is no longer as decisive as it once was.
Furthermore, the West's value system,
enforced on a global scale, has cast doubt on its historical legitimacy into
question.
As a result of these unresolved
structural contradicts, the chaotic world order we are experiencing now stands
out. The consolidation of material power is shifting from the state to the
capital. While this arrangement produces an asymmetry between public power and
capital, it also triggers new economic and social conflict lines. However, it
should not be forgotten that the "states"
remain the most important factor in hegemonic construction.
While the global order established by
the United States after 1945 produced a stable structure to some extent, it
began to deteriorate over time. Notably, after the Cold War, Russia and China's
concerns about the system's sustainability appeared.
This unease can be read in both
historical and geopolitical contexts. The alternative world order rhetoric,
which China, which is expanding and rising in the economic sphere, has taken
Russia with it, is a significant appearance in this context.
Obviously, a paradox arises here. China
and Russia, which advocate for a different international order, are also powers
that operate within the system and retain their material, discursive, and
institutional accumulations within it.
In fact, at one point, the assessments
of these influences on the world order remind me of Hegel's notion of Aufhebung. That is, the past is
rejected yet "preserved" within the new phase that is forming.
The phrase "transition from a known time to the unknown" may be the
greatest way to describe what we are going through right now. Global hegemony
is transforming into a "post"
process. At this stage, it may be deemed usual for all those opposed to the
current order to present alternative suggestions, but the essential problem is
the "applicability" of these and their link to the reasonable one.We
can argue that a "multi
hegemony" proposal is being advanced as an alternative here.
In other words, countries such as China
and Russia claim that to have a systemic role, with a multipolar hegemonic
configuration, in addition to the continuation of the existing hegemonic
framework.
As a result of this a complicated but
unstable system of global hegemony is being emerged by regional and local
hegemonies.
This speculative imagination also
suggests a precarization process into which the peripheral countries that will
embrace the new world order concept are rolled.
For example, in this scenario, how would
the rational interests of those subject to regional, local, or global hegemony
be integrated with the main hegemonic state?
However, a difficulty may occur within
this vision. To exemplify, how will others subject to regional, local, or
global hegemony form their relationships with the central power?
This is a critical question.
To illustrate, on what rational plane
are China's hegemonic influence mobilized by mutual development in the African
continent's fundamental interests and the interests of the countries in the
region determined?
China is most likely trying to obtain
the emergence of multiple hegemonic structures by aligning its objectives with
the interests of the region's countries on a global scale.
As a result of these possibilities,
global governance should be redefined.
As Cox stated, theory not only follows
reality, but it also precedes and influences it. As a result, new proposals for
international order should not be separated from this practical reality base.
The recent emergence of the oppositional
inclination to dismantle the existing system being emerged after 1945 can be
traced to the intense breakdown of social and political structures, as well as
its impact on global order.
While China and Russia fortify
alternative order suggestions and increase strategic efforts against the
current global order, the West, which is attempting to synchronize under the
leadership of the United States, is pursuing hegemonic restoration. It is
conceivable to conclude that this restoration vision became urgent and
mobilized with the Ukraine crisis.
No one expects ideal global governance
in this deadlock. Rather than an ideal global hegemon or multiple hegemonic
structures, the international community can only hope that the current
situation does not worsen, or that a "manageable international
system" is built.
‘Grand narratives’ are collapsing, as I said at the start
of this piece. Power relations are shifting, and the hierarchical framework
that underpins the global hegemonic order is being called into question.
Envisioning the construction of hegemony takes on new significance in this
context. It is vital to provide this imaginative effort with a theoretical
foundation and reduce the widening "gap" between theory and practice.
Today, the trade/diplomacy/technology
conflict between the United States and China might be interpreted as a struggle
for global hegemony. The conflict in question involves options such as
establishing a new world system or restoring the old world order. Or it could
precipitate a shift to a "multiple/multipolar
hegemonic configurations" one in which the United States and China
coexist.
However, early findings indicate a shift
toward a new cold war concept with opposing blocs emerging. While it is
uncertain how long this global interregnum, worsened by regional crises, will
persist and how to break the cycle, comprehensive visions to be created in the
theoretical framework and humanity's collective effort will play a significant
role in the future of global governance.
Dr.Hüseyin Korkmaz. The author is a researcher focusing on China and geopolitics in the Asia, primarily related to the US-China relations.
YORUMLAR