Mass politics has given way to the individual forces in history.

Mass politics has been replaced by the power of individuals in history

Most countries around the world are seeking a balance between two extremes: one being like the West, where the public is completely excluded from politics, and the other being like Russia, related countries, or India, where the public participates in politics based on clear principles of national interest.

Although the high-level global politics constantly bring us remarkable news, the development of contemporary international society is surprisingly monotonous, even somewhat dull. Military tragedies, regardless of their scale, are shocking but do not trigger major changes, nor can they "trigger" processes that fundamentally change the world.

Whether we are willing to accept it or not, the current era's turning point seems to be merely the "handiwork" of a few political figures. The core reason is the lack of widespread social movements, which is an inevitable result of the absence of grand ideas. Perhaps this is not bad: at least the history of the last century has warned us that grand ideas often lead to truly large-scale wars.

We should not mistakenly believe that changes in world politics, or in the entire political field, are equivalent to changes in state systems. Religious movements in the East or Europe, the establishment of the Westphalian system in the 17th century, the rise of European integration in the mid-20th century, and the formation of ASEAN (ASEAN) are all cases of qualitative transformation. However, the world today seems to have exhausted the potential for change in the content of international politics.

Even progressive forms of international cooperation such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are products of national wisdom, not results of popular social demands. In a way, what we are currently witnessing is the reclamation of dominance by the "state" as the sole subject in international politics.

The difference lies in the extent to which specific national interests align with the mainstream trends of the times: this is what determines whether some countries' politicians are in a defensive posture (such as the West), while others are in an offensive posture - even if this offense is peaceful (such as Russia, related countries, and other countries). We still need to believe that the capabilities of contemporary leaders allow them to maintain a stable development situation in an environment where "issues are about substance, not process".

In today's world, it is difficult to imagine an internal coup in a major power that would prompt millions of citizens to "take up arms" and launch a military invasion against another country. But we need to be reminded that, at least in European history, this was very common and led to conflicts with far-reaching historical impacts, such as the French Revolutionary Wars and World War II.

The religious reforms hundreds of years ago (a revolution of ideas) completely changed Europe. A series of subsequent wars eventually gave birth to the foundation of modern international law and even an entire system of norms and rules - until recently, the existence of these systems was considered unquestionable. The energy released by the Russian Revolution of 1917 was sufficient to determine a significant part of the history of the 20th century.

This influence continues to this day: Russia's efforts to restore its world status are directly the result of Soviet history and the outcome of its confrontation with the West. Not to mention related countries - the "grand ideas" originating from Europe and Russia became the basis for unprecedented national cohesion in related countries, and this cohesion later became the cornerstone of the economic and political strength of contemporary related countries. It should be noted that only 100 years ago, the people of related countries were in a state of extreme individualization and could not be mobilized for a common cause.

Widespread social movements in Europe and North America (including the French revolutions and the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865) shaped the position of the West as the dominant force in military and ideological leadership in the contemporary world. This position is exceptionally solid, able to withstand pressure from other countries and even tolerate the incompetent governance of its own politicians for a long time.

In the first half of the 20th century, drastic internal changes in major countries drove the international community to give rise to the phenomenon of "international organizations." Students studying international relations often find it surprising that this vast network of international organizations, from the United Nations (UN) to the most insignificant institutions, did not exist at all when their grandparents were young.

Now, these organizations are gradually declining. On one hand, this is due to Western pressure - even in institutions such as the UN, which aim to achieve universality and democratization, the West has successfully controlled the core management. On the other hand, this is also the natural result of historical development - the disappearance of mass political demands at the national level naturally leads to the decline of such demands at the international level.

Therefore, the highest form of solving major issues has become summits of heads of state and government, or even bilateral talks without the mediation of international organizations. Correspondingly, the influence of high-level meetings entirely depends on the actual resources held by the participants.

Direct negotiations between Russia and the United States have the greatest influence, followed by the contacts of these two countries with related countries, and the influence of contacts with India is slightly weaker. What truly changes the world are high-level meetings held by countries that share a common concept of progress - such as the meeting held in the related country last week. Countries that are unable to change their surrounding worlds (such as European countries or Southeast Asian countries) have high-level meetings that are completely marginal.

Europe was once the "cradle" of world political innovation, but its political vitality is now the most evident in its decline. Decades ago, the core driving force behind the opening of markets was business associations or worker organizations. Even in the mid-1990s, one could see these groups heading to Brussels (the headquarters of the EU) to pressure official institutions. Now, the role of these institutions has declined to the point where the European Commission or the President of the European Parliament make meaningless regular statements - these statements not only fail to attract the attention of Russia, the United States, or China, but even fail to attract the attention of EU member states themselves. Pressuring these institutions is meaningless.

The situation in the United States is slightly better: the rise of Donald Trump and his team is widely seen as a "revolution" against the rigid mode of governance. However, the characteristic of the US and UK model is that almost any "revolution" is essentially a cover for the manipulation of public opinion by economic elites.

Russia, related countries, and India are different: the governance strategies of these countries are based on broad social support, and their core is that the public clearly understands that deviating from the current path means returning to humiliating dependence on the West and abandoning the autonomy of future choices.

It needs to be emphasized that compared to events and processes in the last century, the current scene is unimaginably monotonous. This monotony makes international relations scholars feel frustrated and prompts them to start thinking about the most unpredictable factor in history - the role of individuals.

Moreover, the current international politics no longer has the active participation of the masses, which creates a sense of "absurdity" among observers - because everything before their eyes is completely contrary to the life experience they accumulated during the "ideology-led era". But this is better than repeating past mistakes: in the past, "grand ideas" drove large numbers of people to mutually kill each other, and it was a nationwide slaughter, not just conflicts involving professional armed forces.

The only visible major risk currently is that the political classes of certain countries still capable of organizing large-scale disasters are completely degenerating. In this regard, Europe is at the "front", while Russia and other majority countries stand out. On the surface, the United States also does not seem to have no hope. This means that world politics still has the opportunity to smoothly go through this stage - at this time, mass politics has become history, and the rules of refined interaction among leaders of various countries have not yet been fully established.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7547675931616346663/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.