What Does the Twenty First Century Bode: Clash of Civilizations or the End of History?

What Does the 21^st Century Bode: Clash of Civilizations or the End of History?

A decade has transpired since the United State’s invasion of Iraq. This inaugural decade of the 21st century saw an unprecedented attack on the territory of the United States followed by the world’s sole super power going to war against a country ruled by a psychopathic despot, an economic crisis that elicited parallels with the Great Depression, and then the assassination of the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks. These were then overlain by surprising developments in the Middle East where the hitherto quiescent Arab masses rose in rebellion against authoritarian regimes. This unprecedented and unexpected development which came to be known as the Arab Spring may have lost some of its momentum but in the main it may be said to crystallize a movement which , to say the least is salubrious. Almost all these events could be said to be of historical import and cumulatively their denouement is still an ‘unknown unknown’.

However, what could be reasonably inferred from these events is a pattern. This pattern corresponds to what the political philosopher, Professor Fukuyama, called the’ The End or History’. This thesis which informed the neo con decision to commit the United States to social engineering in the Arab Muslim world competed with another paradigm displacing theory and thesis. This thesis came to be known as the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis. The question is which of these competing theories and theses best corresponds to events that inaugurated the 21st century and what implications does it have for the sole superpower’s foreign policy and future orientation and broadly speaking the West.

The former thesis predicted that with the end of the Cold war, the competition of ideologies was and the import of the Cold War’s end was that the ideas pioneered in the west-especially liberal democracy and all the implications that flow from it- had triumphed over competing ideas or ideologies. Liberal democracy under different permutations and combinations, would come to be accepted as the most legitimate, effective and efficient political idea. No other ideology would pose a threat to this. (The neo cons, it would appear, accepted this thesis and sought to hasten democratization in the part of the world which had proved to be most resistant to it). The Clash of Civilizations thesis, pioneered by the scholar of scholars, the late Samuel Huntington, predicted an imminent clash of civilizations after the end of the Cold war. Different civilizations, according to Huntington, competed and jostled in the political space and that the non western civilizations, ascendant on account of economic growth would challenge the West’s supremacy. And that this would inform the politics of the 21st century.

So which of these two paradigms and theories best approximates the real world or the converse? It would, on balance, appear that Professor Fukuyama had it right. The direction of history appears to be marching on the side of the prognostication that liberal democracy and its concomitant ideas-liberalism and human rights- reign supreme. The Arab Spring –a  movement for human rights and democracy-perhaps best encapsulates this. Other events-September 11, the 2008 economic crisis and the convolutions in Iraq and Afghanistan- may be said to be mere convolutions from a grand historical perspective and may  therefore even be said to constitute birth pangs or teething troubles in the direction of democracy , liberalism and human rights-ideas that form the core of the west. These birth pangs or convolutions do not correspond to civilizations on a war path or clashing with each other. Instead, the civilizational discourse is not about the dominance or prevalence about what/which civilization will rule the roost but corresponds to ideas pioneered in the west. The reference here is to the renaissance ideas and the concomitant corollaries of human rights and liberty. These philosophies –universal in their scope and reach- have caught the imagination of peoples across the world. This points out to their inherent appeal and for want of a better word soft power.

What does this imply for the foreign policy and orientation of the United States? First, consider a broader philosophic point. The prevalence of these ideas means that they have a life of their own and that their intrinsic and universal appeal renders these applicable across cultures, space and time.  And that crystallization and application of these ideas across the world axiomatically have implications for peace and stability. This assertion is, among other things, informed by the democratic peace theory which holds that democracies do not go to war with each other and that citizens of democracies are pacific. Democratization then becomes an American interest or America’s national interest. The question then is , if the end is known and there is consensus on it, what should be the means to bring this about? Should it be the power and might of the United States that becomes the animating impulse of democratization? Or should other means be employed to bring about this end?

America still stands at the apex of power. The world, lets face it, is still unipolar. (World politics may have become multilateral but in terms of system polarity, the United States reigns supreme and there is no challenger to it in sight). However, hard power in the service of an ideal may have unintended consequences and can potentially derail or impinge negatively on the course of history.  And this approach also befuddles the message with the messenger or the medium.  Further, as the trajectory of the west demonstrates, democracy and democratization is more evolutionary than revolutionary. The failure of the neo con project in Iraq may be eloquent testimony to this. So what alternative exists?

Given that hard power or force may not be prudent to establish democracy, it then leaves scope for other policies that creates the environment and context for the establishment of democracy and liberalism. Policies that foster free(r) trade, a more open world, freer movement of peoples and capital or in other words globalization may be more prudent in spreading democracy across the world. Policies that accord a thrust and impetus to globalization may be the best carriers of liberty, democracy and globalization. Admittedly, the process will be slow and not linear, but if history is any guide, these policies in concert could bring about a world that Kant predicted centuries ago.

The power of the ideas of liberty, democracy and human rights is immense. This, to repeat, accrues from their intrinsic merits.  They do not need to be projected by force or the impetus of a powerful state like the United States. But they do need a context. This context can best be provided by the world’s sole superpower and it is to this end that the United States should devote its energies to. The world does not need or await a bare gloved United States with a knuckleduster. It needs to see the face of that United States which is the beacon of liberty and democracy. The world is not divided into hostile civilizations at each other’s throat but is moving to the rhythms or tone set in the renaissance west. All that the United States needs to do is gently nudge these ideas along.  Let the country make haste slowly and bring about a world that is a projection of itself.