You are on page 1of 7

Skip to content

How are emerging powers changing the world?


Home Brazil India China BRICS Global governance Sitemap About Language Arabic Chinese English French German Other languages Portuguese Russian Spanish Events Book reviews Academic journal articles Research Projects

Towards democratic internationalism in a postexceptionalist era?


2012 December 16 Book reviews, English, Global governance 2 Comments by Oliver Stuenkel Like 15 Retweet 8

G. John Ikenberry (author of Liberal Leviathan) and Daniel Deudney have written a thought-provoking

policy paper arguing that the United States should initiate a new phase of democratic internationalism based on the "pull of success rather than the push of power" that "deepens democracy globally, prevents democratic backsliding, and strengthens and consolidates bonds among democratic states." Today, they argue, the United States is no longer as exceptional and indispensable largely because of its success in creating a free world order in which so many states are liberal, capitalist, and democratic. The triumphalist unipolar moment, according to the authors, is over. Therefore, the US needs to reinvigorate liberal internationlaism by once again embracing democracy promotion, but based on a strategy of attractionthe pull of success rather than the push of power. This next phase of democratic internationalism would return liberal internationalism to its roots in social democratic ideals, seek to redress imbalances within the democratic world between fundamentalist capitalism and socioeconomic equity, and move toward a 'posthegemonic system' of global governance in which the United States increasingly shares authority with other democracies. As a consequence, this paper dedicates a surprising amount of space to domestic issues - how to deal with inequality, health care, and fiscal imbalances to assure that democracies become 'middle-class societies' again and are fundamentally seen as more successful countries than non-democratic regimes. All together now Democracies, the authors assert, "must develop a stronger sense of community to face today's challenges." They correctly point out that today's democracies do not face an ideological threat similar to communism during the Cold War. Neither China, nor Russia, nor any other state or non-state actor is capable of articulating any narrative that can seriously challenge liberal democracy. Yet it is precisely because of the absence of such a threat that democracies are unlikely to unite in the way Ikenberry and Deudney would like to have it. The Soviet threat made Atlantic cooperation a necessity that no longer exists today. In addition, countries like India are democratic, but they are extremely reluctant when it comes to democracy promotion or to join a 'democratic alliance'. Many scholars argue that democracy is a "nonissue" for Indian foreign policy. India-Brazil ties, for example, are unlikely to grow very strong just because both countries happened to be democracies - other issues, not related to democracy, matter just as much. Brazil defends democracy in its neighborhood, but mostly because it aligns with its project of regional hegemony, not because it cares about an international community of democracies. In the same way, neither Turkey, South Africa nor Indonesia have been keen democracy defenders or supporters. Ikenberry and Deudney argue that the time has never been better to realize the democratic internatioanlist project - yet what exactly can the United States do to convince democracies such as Brazil and India to start thinking and acting in the framework of a community of democracies? The paper is conspicuously silent about Brazil's and India's motivations to join the United States in such an endeavor. The authors argue that "rather than automatically building larger transnational or supranational bodies and organizations, the democratic community should explore networks, private-public partnerships, and informal groupings as frameworks for managing interdependence." Yet isn't this what democracies should do with non-democratic regimes as well? As I have argued in a recent post, democracies must engage China's civil society to overcome the barriers its non-democratic regime erects between the Chinese people and the rest of the world. Speaking about the United States relation to non-Western democracies, the authors' assertion that "civilizational differences" that will overshadow ties and that "human rights and political democracy are not just Western in origin but Western in character, and their realization is incompatible with the core values of non-Western civilizations" is unlikely to find much approval among readers in Istanbul, Jakarta, New Delhi and Pretoria. Ikenberry and Deudney are right that the United States must become a 'normal' democracy (and no longer an exceptionalist one), but they say little about how to contain the United States' exceptionalist impulses, which includes allowing emerging powers such as Brazil and Turkey assume greater responsibility regarding issues formerly monopolized by the US - such as the Middle East conflict.

The paper ends on an ambiguous note - while Ikenberry and Deudney argue that the United States should become a post-exceptional country, they also hope to "extend the American century" - from a Brazilian or Indian perspective, a stronger US commitment is necessary that the United States is not opposed to their rise and stronger projection of power in global affairs. In addition, many policy makers in rising democracies will be reluctant to use the authors' liberal rhetoric for fear of creating an 'insider vs. outsider' dynamic between democracies and non-democratic regimes. Still, Ikenberry and Deudney make a courageous attempt to introduce new issues into the public debate it is easy to criticize their recommendations, but much harder to develop new ideas about how the United States should position itself in a post-Western world. Read also: Book review: No Ones World by Charles A. Kupchan Book review: American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies and Impacts 2040: US military supremacy vs Chinese economic leadership Who will make the rules in tomorrows world?

2 Responses leave one !

Trackbacks and Pingbacks


1. Book review: "Responsibility to Protect: Cultural Perspectives in the Global South" by Rama Mani and Thomas G. Weiss (eds.) 2. Advocating a Liberal World Order? | Post Western World Leave a Reply
Name: (required): Email: (required): Website:

Comment:

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published. Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Submit Comment

Oliver Stuenkel

Oliver Stuenkel, Professor of International Relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in So Paulo, Brazil READ MORE

Subscribe
SIGN UP TO RECEIVE THE MONTHLY DIGEST

Search
type and press enter

Selected Articles
Tell a Better Story Who is Dilma Rousseff? Why Brazil Matters ndia, muito prazer, Brasil

Like Post Western World


Like 374 people like this.

Twitterfeed
No public Twitter messages. Twiter Follow Oliver Stuenkel on Twitter

Connect with Oliver Stuenkel on Facebook Find us on Facebook Post-Western WorldLike 048 people like Post-Western World

Facebook Activity Feed


Recent Activity Log In Log in to Facebook to see your friends' are doing.

Are liberal democracies nicer than autocracies? 22 people recommend this. Is Brazil the New Regional Champion of Democracy? (Americas Quarterly) 10 people recommend this. http://www.postwesternworld.com/images/2013/10/550/putindog_1761889i.jpg 4 people recommend this.

Facebook social plugin

Recent Comments
Are liberal democracies better global citizens than autocracies? (1) Meetika Srivastava: True it is not clear whether democracies are really better global citizens than autocracies. But... Book launch: Laying the BRICS of a New Global Order (01/11/2013) (3) Oliver Stuenkel: Voltarei da frica do Sul no domingo com vrias cpias. Se estiver em SP, posso te emprestar o... Curso intensivo: The BRICS in Global Politics (1) Juan: Frankly, I dont understand the purpose of this type of course. The term BRIC is the invention of a...

Tag Cloud reviews Brazil BRICS China Chinese English Events French German Global governance India Language Other
Academic journal articles Arabic Book
languages Portuguese Russian Spanish Thematic

Blogroll
http://travellerwithin.blogspot.com/

Archives
October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 June 2010 May 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 July 2009 June 2009 Copyright 2013

Vigilance Theme by The Theme Foundry