Ideological trends in contemporary world politics
Dmitry N. Baryshnikov
School of International Relations
Saint-Petersburg State University
The role of ideology in international relations became a subject for theoretical debate immediately after the assertion of that phenomenon in the political discourse. And even earlier, because major elements of ideological cover of political conduct and the use of propaganda for acquiring both the internal and international legitimacy could be recorded as far back in the centuries as Religious Wars in Europe, the Crusades and up to the dawn of the History. A strict scientific analysis of the ideological components in international affairs became possible after at least two circumstances had been realised. The first one is the formation of the system of international relations among sovereign states in 17-18th centuries. Under that condition all the political phenomena have found their outer bearers and so have acquired a more comprehensible character. The second circumstance was the assertion of political ideology as theoretical concept and the development of its cognoscibility in the frames of different social disciplines in 19-20th centuries. History of theoretical debate about political ideologies and their role in international relations tended to be especially intensive and unpredictable as both phenomena were in constant change. Marxism exposed ideology as a false thinking which is used as a tool in political struggle and had nothing in common with a true theory because any ideology consists in "false conceptions . . . men have constantly made up for themselves . . . about themselves, about what they are and what they ought to be”. . It is noticeable that Marx did not consider his doctrine as an ideology but interpreted it as a scientific theory of socialism. Nevertheless Marxism acknowledges “utilitarian side of ideology which is not more or less true, but more or less useful in the process of domination[i]”. An alternative point of view initiated by Nietzsche puts values in the centre of the ideological discourse. A strict division between “aristocratic” and “vile” systems of values naturally contributed to the rise of corresponding systems of ideologies and their use in politics. In the 20th century the history of Nazism and Fascism manifestly demonstrated that a nation equipped with an ideology of racial or national superiority was condemned to wage an aggressive foreign policy. Since the value issues have become the central point of crossing interests for thinkers involved in ideological studies.
Ideological aspects in world politics have been touched upon by different theories of international relations. During the cold war period when ideological split in international affairs was the most natural thing interpretations of political realities were determined very much by ideological orientation of the authors on both poles. The very character of the bipolar system influenced them in the way the very existence of one side to be a determinate factor for scientific analysis, decision-making process and, in consequence, political actions of the other. Focusing on confrontation in mutual relations was determinative for the basic foreign policy principles of both superpowers. As T. Fridman once put it down: Kremlin was a “guiding star” for the US foreign policy and vice versa. Classics of political realism interpret ideology as an instrument used by politicians in their struggle for power. In that respect any of ideologies would belong to one of the following categories: the so called ideologies of status quo, ideologies of imperialism and ambiguous ideologies the latter being the result of a “confounding effect <…> present whenever an ideology is not made to order, as it were, for a particular type of policy, but can be worn by the defenders of the status quo as well as by the promoters of imperialism”.
Nevertheless, like any “neo-trend” in the history of ideas neo-realism has been developing as consequence of influence and certain penetration of other theoretical approaches. As far as pluralism and globalism are the main opponents to political realism their development and theoretical achievements including ideological attitudes should have affected realist paradigm in certain degree.
Pluralism as an alternative to political realism takes its philosophical roots in liberal tradition. Thesis asserting that any actor having clear economic and thus political program can be a full-right participant of international communication perfectly fits to a number of fundamental liberal principles. A great number of pluralist conceptions appeared after 60s of the last century have been emphasizing different aspects of international (or rather transnational) cooperation so as they have been promoting the role of new actors on the world arena. Having different origins in what is about country and intellectual background those conceptions all belonging inside pluralism have been corresponding to many versions of liberal reasoning. What brings closer those functionalists, neo-functionalists, federalists and representatives of the “interdependence school” to each others is their stress on contracting style of inter-group relations and dominant role of consensus in comparison with conflict.
Globalism the third broad paradigm in international relations theory is known under its another name as neo-marxism, what is not fair for all conceptions inside it but it perfectly reflects its ideological distinguishing from realism and pluralism. The question of actor is not so important for globalism. The main unit of analysis in globalism is global economic system created and controlled by capitalist i. e. “exploitative” actors either they are states, transnational corporations, international banks. The main objects of that “global exploitation” are underdeveloped countries, former colonies which had declared their devotion to the western values in the situation of the cold war but have failed to become full-bloodied members of the free world. Such an approach inevitably brings one to think about the class struggle in Marxist terms extrapolating it on a global level.
Those three main theoretical paradigms in international relations had originated and had been developing in the situation of bipolar world as reflections of theoretical thinking from all over ideological spectrum in the Western world. The very presence of a giant and powerful ideological alternative of a marxist communism in its different versions had been bringing realism, pluralism and globalism closer to each other and had been contributing to a mutual influence and inter-penetration.
Crash of the communism and the end of the bipolar world were conducive to a tremendous shift in ideological dimension of international relations. In spite of the fact that the defeat of USSR and so the historical defeat of communism had been the key purpose of Western countries’ politics for forty-five years when it happened neither politicians, military nor academics were ready to such an impetuous development of the events. A global ideological vacuum together with a paralysis of the strategic will were reigning the world politics for several months in 1991-1992. The very significant reflection of euphoria which seized a great number of political thinkers after that period was the F. Fukuyama’s idea about the end of the History. A cold war inertia was so much present in his paper where the end of an ideological struggle was explained in terms of a pure strategic analysis: as far as communism lost liberalism will occupy the ground left after the looser. At first glance Fukuyama’s logic seemed incontrovertible and many political scientists were sharing his opinion on a new age of liberal democracy which “has thus just not one severe challenge, but three, proving its superiority in both military and economic competition against imperial monarchies, and two types of totalitarian dictatorship. In perspective it becomes clear that a whole round of historic struggle has come to an end, and that Fukuyama’s (1992) liberal triumphalism is not without quite impressive foundations”.
However, the same year when F. Fukuyama published his article such tragic events as ethnic wars in Yugoslavia, deterioration of the situation in the Northern Caucasus enflamed considerable part of the post-socialist space. In those conditions, one hardly could seriously have declared the end of the History and the dawn of a Golden Era for liberal thus universal values.
Among a big number of secession conflicts, ethnic and religious clashes as well as social tensions the hottest ones broke out roughly at the imaginary borders of the Western civilization. The next year a new version of the civilisational paradigm appeared. The S. Huntington’s conception of the clash of civilisations opposes to the idea of universal values. Every of eight world civilisations distinguished by Huntington possessed its particular features much earlier before the perspectives of global modernisation have developed up to the present stage. Huntington just suggested a subject for the debate. Nevertheless, the weak points were discovered in his conception by opponents more frequent was the use of the Huntington’s approach in political analysis especially by journalists.
Conception of “the New Middle Ages” was once more the attempt to perceive a most probable direction the new world order will move in. “The absence of an organised system, disappearance of any centre, appearance of fluid solidarities” would be the main characteristic of the near future. One more example of a new thinking about the future of international relations is not so new in the sense that the realist approach is still represented by a number of respectful and frequently quoted authors among whom H. Kissinger and Z. Brzezinsky. Their approaches are different in what is about perspectives of the world politics and the US role in the world affairs but as far as both are focused on a state-centric analysis they could be considered as representatives of a conservative alternative to new interpretations of the post-cold war world order.
The turn of the millennium has brought us to witness a paradox in liberal ideological and political discourse. On the one hand an evident triumph of the Western economy and living standards, spreading of the Western business culture all over the world nowadays determine the face of the modern civilization. An unprecedented leap in high technologies and transport development comes together with the discovery of "cyberdimension" in all spheres of life. On the other hand those achievements of the Western world contribute to developing of negative trends inside traditional Western political and ideological discourse and lead to a revival of many rival “synthetic” ideologies as alternatives to it. A very obvious proof of it comes out while analysing the major trends and development in world politics in the last decade. The very term world politics has been introduced to the political science discourse as a result of studying world economy, political and social processes in major degree influenced by liberal thinking and liberal way of life. In the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21th centuries international relations are no more exceptional interactions among nation-states and governmental international organizations but a web of constant multi-level relations among all kinds of actors whose activities cross the state borders. In that respect world politics are not an alternative to international relations but an inclusive concept making international relations a cohesive part of global multidimensional, fast-moving interrelations.
World agenda today is mostly formed by strategic plans and day-to-day politics determined by a group of the most powerful actors: big states (USA, UK, France, Japan, Russia), international bodies (G8, UN, IMF, European Union), transnational corporations (Microsoft, Halliburton etc.). In their interrelations global agenda the urgency of which is recognized today by majority of them is in indissoluble ties with their individual interests and ambitions. Besides we should pay attention to the role of transnational informal political groups and so called world civil society whose involvement in the global agenda is more and more significant. What is the role of ideology in that context? To what extend do ideological divergences among the actors either rooted in History or raised up recently influence different aspects of their relations? All those questions do not suppose easy answers but need to be elaborated on.
The process of fragmentation and multiplication of the ideological discourse is just at its outset. In the world where liberal ideology (in the totality of its versions) and Western values are unconditionally leading systems of political discourse, “alternative” ideological trends have just started pioneering the world political landscape. In that situation traditional and so far strongest actors of world politics do not need a diverse set of political ideologies in order to fit to the main rules of international cooperation in a globalizing world. There are several examples when a non-liberal ideology is dominating in one country, but those states either stay in periphery of the world politics and very often quasi isolated like North Korea and Cuba, or try to find points of interest for restricted (more often economic) cooperating with the outer world while using its ideological regime for “interior consumption”(China, Saudi Arabia, Iran). So diverse as active non-state actors try to assert their presence on the world arena. As representatives of the most cohesive and active part of the world civil society those groups use an alternative ideological discourse in order to affirm their identity while opposing themselves (deliberately or not) to the worldwide dominating ideological system. Their inner flexibility contributes to an easy and constant inter-penetration what causes appearing of such ideological hybrids as anarchical feminism or religious ecologism. At the same time common anti-globalist sense of their ideological purpose and the use of modern communication technologies allows to many of NSMs to play a more and more active role of alternative actors in contemporary world affairs.
Post-reading activities:
1. Comment on the underlined terms (or people’s names)
2. Answer the following questions: What are the main ideological grounds known in the world today that have impacted the flow of international relations? Which ideology seems appealing to you and why? What is the difference between world politics and international relations? What is the current criterion that determines major players in the world? Some believe that there is “a world government” (includes about 168 most powerful people in the world). Does this belief seem plausible?
3. Read the text below and explain the connection you see between a specific ideology and Russia’s relationships with the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Text for rendering
Политический кризис в Молдавии далек от завершения. По требованию партии коммунистов (ПКРМ) ЦИК решил пересчитать голоса на последних выборах. ПКРМ заявляет о массовых фальсификациях, ее оппоненты выводят людей на улицы. Каким бы ни был исход противостояния, очевидно, что “потерпевшей” стороной опять окажется Россия, которая стремительно теряет влияние в одной из самых лояльных и зависимых от нее республик. После Белоруссии и Украины Молдавия — самая близкая нам республика бывшего СССР. Это хотя и неславянская, но православная страна. Причем, в отличие от православной, но азиатской по менталитету Грузии, она действительно находится в Европе — даже чисто географически. И менталитет молдаван нам даже ближе, чем “своих” мусульманских народов Северного Кавказа. Молдавии удалось избежать прибалтийских крайностей в отношении русскоязычных национальных меньшинств, составляющих здесь около 22%. Русский язык сохранил статус языка межнационального общения (а в Приднестровье и Гагаузии получил статус официального). Русскоговорящий гость не испытывает никаких проблем с общением в гостиницах, ресторанах, магазинах. О значении России для молдавского электората говорит хотя бы такой факт: премьер Филат в качестве главного козыря своей предвыборной кампании избрал недавнюю встречу с Владимиром Путиным. Одна из русскоязычных газет, явно симпатизирующая главе либерал-демократов, накануне выборов вышла с огромным фото российского и молдавского премьеров, обменивающихся крепким мужским рукопожатием. Причем фото было не только на первой полосе, но и дублировалось внутри газеты. Недвусмысленный посыл к избирателям: “только Филат способен установить подлинно дружественные отношения с Россией!” Чтобы на таком фоне в Кишиневе на улицах раздались призывы “защитить Молдавию от посягательств России”, как это было во время митингов в минувшее воскресенье, нужно было очень постараться. Мы, безусловно, постарались. Только ленивый не называл политику Кремля в бывших советских республиках “непоследовательной”. Однако в Молдавии пора уже применительно к ней использовать эпитет “шизофреническая”. В республике, где 10 лет подряд на выборах стабильно побеждают партии с наиболее “пророссийской” риторикой, наши стратеги от геополитики никак не могут определиться с надежным партнером. Стоит добавить, что их более дальновидные и мудрые предшественники времен СССР облегчили задачу, надежно приковав Молдавию к России якорем Приднестровья. Можно по-разному оценивать процессы, которые привели к образованию на берегах “исконно европейской” реки Днестр пророссийского анклава. Сегодняшние хозяева Кремля не имели к этому никакого отношения, им он достался по наследству в готовом виде. Наследством же можно распорядиться по-разному. Можно его приумножить, а можно за пару лет промотать на курортах. Наши власти, похоже, просто не знали, что делать с Приднестровьем и для чего оно вообще нужно. Существовало множество вариантов, как использовать эту территорию (кстати, исконно российскую и никогда, исключая последние 50 лет советской истории, никакого отношения к Молдавии не имевшую) в национальных интересах России. Выбрали наихудший: Приднестровье было сделано инструментом пиара. Есть верная примета: если по федеральным телеканалам идут сюжеты о “приднестровской мафии”, значит, отношения Москвы и Кишинева опять потеплели. Попытки “слить” Приднестровье предпринимались неоднократно. Наиболее убийственной для имиджа Кремля оказалась история 2003 года с Меморандумом Козака: тогда президент Молдавии Владимир Воронин отказался подписывать документы, когда самолет президента РФ уже был готов к вылету в Кишинев. А ведь замысел был не лишен изящества: Владимир Путин должен был торжественно одним росчерком пера положить конец 14-летнему конфликту, выступив перед лицом Европы в роли настоящего “голубя мира”. Но обернулось все демонстрацией унижения и бессилия России, чей “миротворческий триумф” был отменен послом США в Кишиневе. Теперь вместо Козака на молдавские грабли брошен глава президентской администрации Сергей Нарышкин. Смысл его недавнего визита в Кишинев был истолкован там абсолютно однозначно: Кремль подталкивает ПКРМ и Демократическую партию к созданию правящей коалиции. А российская дипломатия вдруг в пожарном режиме принялась обсуждать приднестровскую проблему с кем ни попадя. 7 декабря на Смоленской площади принимали министра иностранных дел ПМР Владимира Ястребчака и молдавского посла Андрея Негуцу. 10 декабря сам Сергей Лавров обсуждал приднестровское урегулирование со своим украинским коллегой. 14 декабря его зам Григорий Карасин на эту же тему беседовал с главой миссии ОБСЕ в Молдавии г-ном Ремлером. Это ясный сигнал “дорогим молдаванам”: вы — власть коммунистам, мы вам — Приднестровье.Трудно сказать, в чем секрет столь горячих симпатий Москвы к молдавским коммунистам и демократам, учитывая, что и те, и другие неоднократно ее обманывали. Про Воронина см. выше. Основатель Демпартии Дмитрий Дьяков как-то хвастался мне, что в 2005 году “кинул” Кремль, игравший тогда против Воронина. Его и приглашали в Москву, и давили — но его фракция в парламенте все же поддержала коммунистов. Где гарантии, что аналогичный сюжет не повторится и сейчас? В августе 2008-го российская власть не могла поступить иначе, чем она поступила. Настроения в обществе были таковы, что в ином случае Манежная площадь в более жестком варианте могла случиться уже тогда. Но подпорченный в глазах Запада имидж, по мнению нашей политэлиты, нуждается в срочной корректировке. Пророссийское Приднестровье, похоже, избрано на роль той “священной жертвы”, которая будет принесена Западу, чтобы тот простил наши “грузинские шалости”. Разумеется, внутри страны это будет преподнесено как большой успех на международной арене — мирное урегулирование многолетнего конфликта. Президент получит заслуженные лавры и останется в истории не как расчленитель Грузии, а как объединитель Молдавии. А то, что через десяток лет, когда от ПКРМ не останется даже воспоминаний, а во всех властных кабинетах будут сидеть нынешние студенты румынских вузов, нейтральный статус Молдавии под каким-нибудь предлогом будет отменен, приднестровская автономия — ликвидирована и единая Молдавия вместе с Приднестровьем вступит в НАТО, а то и объединится с Румынией, — так это будет уже при другом президенте, у которого будут совсем другие имиджмейкеры. Им и расхлебывать.
Text 2
Pre-reading activity:
1. Share your knowledge about various international organizations with your peers and explain why (or why not) they retain (or don’t) the importance in world affairs.