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.