Is Liberalism Dead?
In
Login if you are already registered
(votes: 1, rating: 5) |
(1 vote) |
Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Head of the World Politics Department of the Higher School of Economics
In a relatively short period over the past two or three decades, we have seen the triumph of liberalism in international life and its decline. This triumph manifested itself in strengthened international cooperation, an expanded policy of exporting democracy, and a broader recognition of the humanitarian component in foreign policy. Today we see the state’s return to world politics, and the notion of national interest once again overshadows supranational and global intellectual constructs. Can or should global issues be resolved via liberal methods?
In a relatively short period over the past two or three decades, we have seen the triumph of liberalism in international life and its decline. This triumph manifested itself in strengthened international cooperation, an expanded policy of exporting democracy, and a broader recognition of the humanitarian component in foreign policy. Today we see the state’s return to world politics, and the notion of national interest once again overshadows supranational and global intellectual constructs. Does this revanche of the state with its peculiar perception of the world demonstrate the collapse of liberalism in international relations? Has the liberal perspective of the development of the global system ended in deadlock? Can liberalism coexist with increasing globalization? Can or should global issues be resolved via liberal methods?
Liberalism Means Freedom, Equality, and ...
Liberalism is both a complex and simple set of views on the world around us, forming an ideal image of the political system of the state, economy and international relations based on the recognition of the primacy of the individual. Liberal principles include individualism, egalitarianism, and universalism [1]. Individualism implies the individual’s ethical superiority, i.e. the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the social group; egalitarianism presupposes universal moral and political equality; universalism highlights commonality among people, pushing religious, cultural and individual differences into the background. It should be noted that liberalism believes in progress and the ability of people to change the world for the better.
To be more precise, liberalism has, historically, meant a specific set of philosophical principles relating to learning and changing the world, and only later became a political concept or set of political concepts. As a moral philosophy liberalism today denotes, above all, the recognition of the principles of freedom and equality, which, according to Wolfe, offers ever more people an opportunity to determine how to live their lives [2]. The second pillar of liberalism is a fair and impartial application of the same rules to everyone. The third principle of liberalism is hard to define, due to its social and moral nature. It comes down to joining and including rather than separating and excluding; allowing rather than prohibiting; respecting and sympathizing rather than stigmatizing and gloating.
While it makes little sense to dispute the coherent and attractive moral basis of the liberal idea, difficulties and contradictions arise when liberal principles come into conflict with the realities of day-to-day life. Recognizing the individual’s primacy can, in some instances, seem to mean ignoring the interests of the society; egalitarianism – can seem like sanctimonious money-worshiping; and universalism – like giving the green light to permissiveness, sexual promiscuity, and anti-social behavior. As usual, the devil is in the detail of how these principles are put into practice. Liberal principles often attract self-sufficient, energetic, self-confident people. But what about those who derive strength from belonging to a particular nation or state? In contrast to liberalism, conservatism emphasizes the values of tradition, order, and the individual belonging to the whole, be it state, nation, or family. Conservatism often takes on a religious aspect, based on the moral and ethical values of a particular faith.
Socio-economic development is based on the collision and interaction of these fundamental principles, i.e. the private and the whole, the individual and the social. International relations are also developing dialectically, with liberalism being one of the major ideologies and political philosophies of development. Liberalism here stands opposed to realism (nationalism) or, in other words, state-oriented ideologies and doctrines.
Liberalism in International Relations
Liberal concepts that shape global politics stem from the assumption that a state’s foreign policy is predicated on its internal structure. Thus, liberals believe that democratic governments carry out the mandate of voters, who want to live in peace and prosperity. Since voters do not want to send their sons to the front and pay for military spending, democratic governments will follow a peaceful policy. Authoritarian (totalitarian) states rely on power and the suppression of human dignity so can easily sacrifice the well-being and lives of their subjects to achieve their goals, which involve strong-arm superiority over the neighbors and prestige based on force.
Liberalism in international relations focuses on the role of non-state actors and institutions. Liberals recognize large multinational corporations, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations as full participants in international relations and feel the need to involve them in discussing and solving problems in global politics.
Liberalism considers economic interests to be the main driver of international relations. This school of thought acts on the premise that the most efficient allocation of resources and, therefore, building the best of all possible worlds, can be attained via the global market, not via the state. Liberal scholars and politicians pay particular attention to economic (trade, financial) reasons for conflicts and wars and consider economic and trade cooperation, open trade, foreign direct investment (FDI) and free financial markets to be the optimum mechanisms for ensuring peace. Generally speaking, liberals believe that private initiatives and financial interests rule the world, while their eternal opponents, the realists (nationalists), argue that the world is ruled by ideas, as well as the lust for power and prestige.
Despite the apparent irreconcilability of the liberal and realist approaches, they co-exist quite successfully in global politics. Liberalism to varying degrees is present in all states’ foreign policies, including Russia, with its traditional understanding of the international arena as a competitive environment replete with danger, dominated by states that are anxious to protect their own safety and establish superiority over others.
Liberalism is sure to survive. It will never win a decisive victory, but it will retain a presence and develop, for without it there can be no “onward march of history” in the eternal debate between liberalism and realism.
It is fair to assert that, despite the prevailing liberal rhetoric emphasizing the role played by international institutions of cooperation, free trade and open financial markets in promoting international peace and security, no state or supranational association (e.g. the EU) pursues an absolutely liberal foreign policy. All leading nations’ foreign policies reflect the struggle for influence and prestige [3], and even those that are known as liberal empires [4] are liberal only in part. For example, the United States is seriously concerned about China’s growing economic and military might and considers the Asian giant a strategic threat to its national security, simply because China is approaching parity with the U.S. in terms of power. Henry Kissinger put it like this: “Once China becomes strong enough to stand alone, it might discard us. A little later it might even turn against us, if its perception of its interests requires it.” [5]
The ratio of liberalism to realism in international politics changes over time. Thus, since 1972, when President Nixon announced the end of the gold standard for the US dollar, ushering in an era of restructuring the global financial system, liberal trends gained momentum in global politics. They became prevalent after the liberal revolution of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, and especially after the end of the Cold War. The crucial problem of national currency rates and, consequently, national economies’ competitiveness moved beyond state control and was farmed out to the markets. Gradually, states relinquished control over capital flow across national borders, liberalized world trade, and the developed world went as far as to allow the almost free movement of people. Throughout the 1980s-2000s the voices of those who predicted the final triumph of liberalism in the international system became louder, claiming that the era of globalization left no place for national self-interest. Liberal politicians also claimed that the future would be shaped by cooperation between countries, in accordance with citizens’ vital interests in freedom and prosperity within democratic states prevailing in the modern world [6].
Today, against a background of ongoing global economic crisis, liberalism is losing ground; having returned to world politics, the state is on the offensive against the market [7]. Government regulation has intensified, restrictions are imposed on the free movement of capital, and states are acting to stimulate exports and protect domestic producers. Liberal foreign policy is beating a retreat on moral grounds as well: many important international issues remain unresolved, and liberal foreign policy principles were all too often used as a weapon.
The liberal perception of international relations is also challenged by other unfolding processes. First, many countries are seeing ideologies that could potentially turn totalitarian strengthen, and a greater emphasis in on coercive methods international relations (the Arab Spring with its ideological and political consequences is one such example). Second, individualism, as part and parcel of liberalism, is conflicting with the need to solve pressing global problems, resulting in the failure of projects such as the Kyoto Protocol or the Doha Round of WTO negotiations.
So, given this context, does the liberal perspective have a future in global politics? Yes, it does. As long as markets form the foundation of the global economy, as long as people pursue the goals of happiness, prosperity, independence and dignity, liberalism is sure to survive. It will never win a decisive victory, but it will retain a presence and develop, for without it there can be no “onward march of history” in the eternal debate between liberalism and realism.
Can we expect to see a change in the balance between these two key approaches to global affairs, a return to the values of collaboration, personal autonomy and the precedence of individual rights over the interests of the social group? A dramatic shift toward liberal values in international affairs seems unlikely in the near future.
Only countries that are rich, powerful, and confident of their righteousness and stability can afford to pursue a liberal foreign policy. Today, when the world faces a rapid redistribution of power and wealth, the ideas of political freedom in the absence of competition have somewhat lost their integrity, and yielded to protective instincts. It appears that the current changes in the technological setup, global financial system, and structure of society (the world is aging rapidly) have adjourned coping with global challenges such as climate change to a later date, as the priorities now are to adjust to the new reality and occupy a decent place in global economic and political life. Therefore, states will be the driving force that will see these goals are accomplished, while liberal foreign policy must wait in the wings. Liberal foreign policy is approaching its centenary (assuming it was born with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s initiatives) debilitated, but not obsolete. It’s simply that its time has not yet come.
1. Gray J. Liberalism. Minneapolis, 1995.
2. Wolfe A. The Future of Liberalism. N.Y., 2009.
3. Morgenthau H.J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Fifth ed., revised. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. P. 8.
4. Bishai L.S. Liberal Empire // Journal of International Relations and Development. 2004. Vol. 7. Pp. 48–72.
5. Kissinger H. White House Years. Boston, 1979. P. 1091.
6. Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. N.Y., 1992.
7. Gat A. The End of the End of History // Foreign Affairs. 2007. July/August.
(votes: 1, rating: 5) |
(1 vote) |
