The World Is Marching Toward Anarchy

Everyone loves equality: equality of races, of ethnic groups, of sexual orientations, and so on. The problem is, however, that in geopolitics equality usually does not work very well. For centuries Europe had a rough equality between major states that is often referred to as the balance-of-power system. And that led to frequent wars. East Asia, by contrast, from the 14th to the early 19th centuries, had its relations ordered by a tribute system in which China was roughly dominant. The result, according to political scientist David C. Kang of the University of Southern California, was a generally more peaceful climate in Asia than in Europe. The fact is that domination of one sort or another, tyrannical or not, has a better chance of preventing the outbreak of war than a system in which no one is really in charge; where no one is the top dog, so to speak. That is why Columbia University's Kenneth Waltz, arguably America's pre-eminent realist, says that the opposite of "anarchy" is not stability, but "hierarchy."

Hierarchy eviscerates equality; hierarchy implies that some are frankly "more equal" than others, and it is this formal inequality -- where someone, or some state or group, has more authority and power than others -- that prevents chaos. For it is inequality itself that often creates the conditions for peace.

Government is the most common form of hierarchy. It is a government that monopolizes the use of violence in a given geographical space, thereby preventing anarchy. To quote Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English philosopher, only where it is possible to punish the wicked can right and wrong have any practical meaning, and that requires "some coercive power."

The best sort of inequality is hegemony. Whereas primacy, as Kang explains, is about preponderance purely through military or economic power, hegemony "involves legitimation and consensus." That is to say, hegemony is some form of agreed-upon inequality, where the dominant power is expected by others to lead. When a hegemon does not lead, it is acting irresponsibly.

Of course, hegemony has a bad reputation in media discourse. But that is only because journalists are confused about the terminology, even as they sanctimoniously judge previous historical eras by the strict standards of their own. In fact, for most of human history, periods of relative peace have been the product of hegemony of one sort or another. And for many periods, the reigning hegemonic or imperial power was the most liberal, according to the standards of the age. Rome, Venice and Britain were usually more liberal than the forces arranged against them. The empire of the Austrian Hapsburgs in Central and Eastern Europe often protected the rights of minorities and prevented ethnic wars to a much greater degree than did the modern states that succeeded it. The Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and the Middle East frequently did likewise. There are exceptions, of course, like Hapsburg Spain, with its combination of inquisition and conquest. But the point is that hegemony does not require tyrannical or absolutist rule.

Stability is not the natural order of things. In fact, history shows that stability such as it exists is usually a function of imperial rule, which, in turn, is a common form of hierarchy. To wit, there are few things messier in geopolitics than the demise of an empire. The collapse of the Hapsburgs, of the Ottoman Turks, of the Soviet Empire and the British Empire in Asia and Africa led to chronic wars and upheavals. Some uncomprehending commentators remind us that all empires end badly. Of course they do, but that is only after they have provided decades and centuries of relative peace.

Obviously, not all empires are morally equivalent. For example, the Austrian Hapsburgs were for their time infinitely more tolerant than the Soviet Communists. Indeed, had the Romanov Dynasty in St. Petersburg not been toppled in 1917 by Lenin's Bolsheviks, Russia would likely have evolved far more humanely than it did through the course of the 20th century. Therefore, I am saying only in a general sense is order preferable to disorder. (Though captivating subtleties abound: For example, Napoleon betrayed the ideals of the French Revolution by creating an empire, but he also granted rights to Jews and Protestants and created a system of merit over one of just birth and privilege.)

In any case, such order must come from hierarchal domination.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/04/18/the_world_is_marching_toward_anarchy_105085.html

Print this post

Do you like this post?

Showing 2 reactions


commented 2013-04-20 21:29:08 -0400 · Flag
Thomas writes:

interesting article, The Problem, Hegemony Requires Leadership,
There Has Been No Leadership in this country for more than a
Quarter of a Century – the conclusion of Reagans 2nd term.

Now instead of leadership, discipline (fiscal & moral) and the
idea of contributing to society vs. feeding off of society,
we have devolved into a dysfunctional state of Rot
(By Design the Liberal Agenda) where the most pressing issues
of the day are Gay Marriage, Background checks for Gun Owners,
Food Stamps and of course America’s crowning achievement and
contribution to 21st century life, Social Media.

The country deserves the fate that awaits it, I am Only sorry
that I still live here, the pygmies that have ushered in this
new age of Nothingness, deserve to live in the Ghetto that they
have created.

This is the natural state of affairs & end product of a Hegemon that
still retains it’s Power (by historical default for the time being)
while gasping its last breaths in the Iron Lung, reduced to mechanical
anatomical function, Devoid of anything resembling Leadership,
Strength & Clarity – What else would one expect from a country
that has ceded its governance to a Ghetto Thug.
commented 2013-04-20 21:26:58 -0400 · Flag
JC writes:

The US hegemony has legs still.