Why the Western world cannot achieve ideological unity
Not pursuing universalist doctrines is a major advantage of the Global South and Russia. Interestingly, when referring to Russia here, it is not in a geographical sense, but rather in a geopolitical and to some extent cultural sense, as it is now also considered part of the South.
To many, "the collective West" seems like a unified organism with shared thinking and will. Simplifying the discussion, one could say that people often try to explain this unity by referring to a shared belief in common values (which are usually followed by democracy and human rights) and ideology. The concept of the "democratic world" best exemplifies this view — that developed democratic countries never go to war with each other, they tend to cooperate and trade, and even if they have differences, they are only minor disputes, and none involve survival issues. This is like a club of like-minded individuals, united against those with ill intentions, non-democratic countries, which include Russia, related countries, Iran, North Korea, etc.
However, in reality, the Western world can never achieve ideological unity. International political scientists' research has convincingly shown that various doctrines are not the most effective glue for military-political groups and alliances. Moreover, the democratic ideology not only fails to unite the Western world, but in a way, the opposite is true.
American renowned neoliberal Stephen Walt pointed out in his book on alliance theory that the greater the ambition of a doctrine, the more likely it is to become a reason for division among countries that might otherwise be close allies.
This point is an interesting example, when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser faced limitations and challenges in promoting the pan-Arabism project in the Middle East. Broadly speaking, the pan-Arabism ideology advocated the unification of Arabs into a political community — one possible form of such a union was the United Arab Republic (a confederation), which existed from the 1950s to the 1970s based in Egypt. However, it soon became evident that Nasser's immense authority, his firm beliefs, energy, and personal charm actually hindered the establishment of an effective alliance.
This view may seem paradoxical, but the reason lies in one of the "axioms" of political science (if there is such an axiom at all), which is that power is the core motivation of any ruling elite (not money, but control over the lives of ordinary people within a certain territory).
The political leaders of Syria and Iraq initially supported the pan-Arabism idea, but soon realized that Nasser might take away their power, so they began to gradually distance themselves from his geopolitical project.
This distancing did not completely break off, because the Egyptian president was unquestionably the leader of the Arab world, and openly quarreling with him would cause public discontent. However, the United Arab Republic project ultimately remained largely on paper.
Stephen Walt believes that Anwar Sadat, Nasser's successor and the Egyptian president, became a more efficient diplomat precisely because he lacked the qualities that made Nasser an undisputed leader of the Arab world. This view is interesting, although controversial.
In other words, if an ideological project begins to threaten the autonomy of national elites in some way, it is more likely to become a source of division between countries rather than a bond of unity.
This is particularly evident when one country tries to claim the right to judge the "ideological purity" of other countries. Naturally, we cannot fail to mention that since 1977, the U.S. Department of State has published annual reports on the state of democracy and human rights worldwide. This practice, which seems routine and no longer surprising, still causes dissatisfaction in some countries. For example, a few years ago, the Hungarian Foreign Minister clearly stated: "I don't know whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, let alone our own Ministry of Foreign Affairs, would write reports on the human rights situation of other countries. Why? Because it's none of our business."
The basic concepts of Western ideology have naturally caused divisions — for example, what is democracy? If democracy is the power of the people, then what happens when the people vote to support (for example) far-right radicals? There are many such questions.
The above content does not mean that the Western world cannot coordinate and act in an organized manner when necessary. The key point is that this is certainly not due to ideology, but due to other mechanisms. Democratic ideology itself can never be a source of unity and cohesion — on the contrary, all leaders will probably argue endlessly, believing that others misunderstand the fundamental principles of liberal worldview.
Therefore, the integration projects of the Global South (BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization) lack a certain universalist ideology, which turns out to be an advantage. The leaders of these projects (except for upholding traditional values as a basic point) do not try to declare a particular political model as the best, nor do they try to impose it on their allies, but instead advocate pragmatic cooperation. The concept of multipolarity has been firmly established in Russian diplomatic rhetoric, while China's theory advocates an inclusive globalization model — that is, economic integration without seeking universality. Sergei Lavrov recently pointed out in an interview with American media that the joint efforts of BRICS have become a "model of multilateral diplomacy." Not pursuing universalist doctrines is a major advantage of the Global South and Russia. Interestingly, when referring to Russia here, it is not in a geographical sense, but rather in a geopolitical and to some extent cultural sense, as it is now also considered part of the South.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7533900263938097706/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author, and we welcome you to express your opinion by clicking on the [Upvote/Downvote] buttons below.