Peace and Ideologies

Introduction

Ideology may appear vague yet it has made distinctive role in shaping identities of Parties,
States and Nations. The concept of ideology was first coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in
1796 while referring to ideas. In the words of Karl Manneheim, ideology refers to the
particular ideologies which are used by nations for securing the goals of their national
interests. These are in the form of simple, legal or ethical or biological principles such as
justice, equality, fraternity or natural struggle in relations. Reflecting upon the realist
theoretical premise of international relations, Hans Morganthau argues that ideologies are a
cover to conceal the true nature of political actions. It is the very nature of politics to compel
the actor on the political scene to use ideologies in order to disguise the immediate goals of
this action. Ideology may be defined as a set of beliefs that guide the functional scope of an
entity. Ideologies were not so detrimental in traditional international system. With the
growing modernisation of society and power, ideologies began to shape political views often
leading to contestations and conflicts.

Deepening the ideological divide

Quest for individual and community rights led to the production of new systems which in
turn shaped international political relations thereby affecting market, diplomacy and nature of
alliance formation. Since the seventeenth Century, liberalism evolved to become the core of
Western social, economic and political system. Science and colonialism grew hand in hand
while ‘capitalism and liberal democracy’ became a dominant ideology of the modern state
system. However, the early 20th Century began to witness hardening boundaries between
liberal and communist societies. The Communists termed liberalism as promoting ‘bourgeois
democracy’. It opposed free trade as exploitative. The Russian Revolution of 1917 further
exposed the crisis of capitalism and traditions of authoritarianism.

As a result, ideological moorings transformed traditional state system into group politics
amongst nations. The rise of the liberals, the fascist and the communist engineered blocs
politics that overwhelmingly overshadowed state behaviours and foreign policies. It was not
only the inter-state relations that was ideologically partitioned, the social and political
mobilizations from liberation from external dominance were also equally influenced by
ideological moorings. The humiliation of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles came as an
initial moment for further bifurcation of inter-state relations into ideological camps. The
division of world’s politics on the basis of ideology encouraged politics of vendetta and
groupism. The impact was so extensive that world’s first collective attempt to secure peace
through the formation of the League of Nations in 1919 proved insufficient. The traditional
dynastic assertions and inter-principality struggle for power had limited dimension of
ideology. The rise of liberalism and subsequent imperial expansion had ensued new breeding
grounds for ideologies. By the second decade of the twentieth Century, inter-state diplomacy
was beginning to be confined either to national interests or mutuality of advantage of like-
minded camps of nations. Since then international peace began to be determined by the
exigencies of ideologies as wars were designed on the basis camps while diplomatic treaties
were informed by political isms. The concept of ‘balance of power’ that defined the larger
aspect of the 20th Century international politics was played out at the backdrop of ideological
leanings.

The Actual Contestations

Since the 1930s, there was a growing division of the world on ideological grounds. In
addition to the rise of fascism in Eastern Europe and Far East, there were three more
significant political ideological currents; the communist bloc led by the Soviet Union, the
Western liberals and the emergent nationalities that were looking for independence. Despite
the enormous value accorded to peace and co-existence, modern political relations proved no
better due to the enormous embeddedness of ideological animosity. Ideology has not only
been a source national power, but also a source of regional and group power. The world
before and after the Second World War exposed the blatant ideological division of World
Politics. In 1947, under the Truman Doctrine, the United States of America campaigned to
provide assistance, including military aid, to countries which were fighting against
communists as a part of its open policy of ‘containment of Communism’. Soon after, the
Marshall Plan was announced to give economic aid to like-minded European states.

Such an open campaign had already put world’s peace at stake as it fuelled a form of new war
that came to be known as ‘Cold War’. On April 4, 1949, another important step was made to
aggravate the situation when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was founded
under the initiative of US, Britain, France, and Canada. It was not a conducive initiative as far
as the world’s peace was concerned as NATO aimed at countering communism. Its
membership has grown from 12 to 29. It was natural to have a counter forum which came to
be known as the Warsaw Pact, 1955, (dissolved in 1991) which was constituted by the
Communist leaning States led by the Soviet, Poland and Eastern Socialist republics. The
Warsaw Pact was constituted as a response to the integration of West Germany into US led
NATO. It was to play the role of a collective defence treaty under the command of the Soviet
in alliance with seven associate states. The associate states were the Central and Eastern
European nations like Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland
and Romania. The two camps indulge in hegemonic and group politics to increase their own
ideological sphere of influence while concealing the same.

Having realised the hazards of Cold War, the US President despite having a conservative
political background tried to ease relations with Russia and Chinese republic in order to ease
tensions in North Vietnam. However, President Nixon’s efforts of the 1970s was perceived to
be an ideological conspiracy of proverbial ‘divide and be strong’ to cause ripples in the
relationship between the Soviet and China. The modern States, thus, remained entangled in
ideological predilections thereby causing significant dent on international peace and national
political behaviours.

Foreign policy analysts, Richard C. Snyder and Hubert Wilson, have aptly summed up the
relationship between ideology and peace as deeply detrimental to each other. According to
them,

Ideology is a cluster of ideas about life and government, which originates, in most
cases, as consciously advocated, dogmatically asserted social, political or religious
 slogans or battle cries and which through continuous usage and preaching gradually
become the characteristic beliefs or dogmas of a particular group, party or nationality.

Karl Mannheim calls such ideological currents of international politics as ‘particular

ideologies’ which are conveniently employed by nations to reject and subdue their opponents
or even to justify their own political ideas and practice. Ideology, thus, remains an instrument
for acquiring and sustaining power.

Towards the end of isms

Several scholars working in the field had started to expect an end of ideological conflict as
result of the demise of fascism with the end of the Second World War. Daniel Bell in his
‘The End of Ideology’ published in 1960 expressed the possibility of an ending of isms and its
politics. According to him, the traditional ideologies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
were exhausted as fascism and communism had become irrelevant. He further argued that
future polity would be ‘sensible’, welfare centric, liberal democratic and workers of the
industrial societies would no more be swept away by the revolutionary propaganda. Such
scholarships were in corollary to the rise of American liberal economy and the growing
divide within the Soviet Communists. The formation of the United Nations Organisation in
1945 induced more of a liberal political value while enhancing global capital flow through
several multilateral initiatives. On other hand, newly independent countries were increasingly
trying to escape the ideological binary. The concept of non-aligned movements as propagated
by the newly emerging countries also contributed in the weakening of ideological conflicts.
The opening up of the Chinese economy in the 1980s also contributed in the fading away of
hard ideological difference between liberal welfarism and socialist welfarism. More
importantly, the disintegration of the Soviet Union had given the deadliest blow to the
hitherto existing ideological binaries.

Taking advantage of the emerging international politics, liberal scholars like Francis
Fukuyama took no time to call the disintegration as ‘the End of History’. Fukuyama strikes
back at the core of communist dialectics by claiming that Hegelian concept of anti-thesis to
liberalism was no more relevant. The nineteen nineties were significantly flooded the debate
over the end of ideology. American scholar Samuel Huntington responding to Fukuyama
argued that the future of international relations was to be more about clash of civilizations.
The transition of the nature of international relations and the determinants of peace are
constantly re-thought about. For instance, Francis Fukuyama while reformulating his
conception of the ‘end of ideology’ today talks about the rise of identity politics for dignity
and the politics of resentment as a new international concern.

Conclusion

Liberal scholars are of the view that the demise of communist Soviet and increasing reforms
by the communist countries around the world have upheld liberal values like democratisation,
market economy, free trade, etc. The liberalisation of Chinese economy had led the critiques
dubbed the traditionally bastion of communism as being transformed into ‘market socialism’.
The liberal celebration of permanent victory over communism has its own limitations. The
continuing struggle for influencing the multilateral organisations like the UN Security
Council, World Health Organisation on the one hand, and growing tussle between the US and
China in various geo-political spaces, on the other hand, continue threaten global peace. To
take cue from Hans Morgenthau, the international relations continue to entrap in three
ideological layers – one struggling for ideological status quo; second committing itself to
dominate over others and thirdly the emerging multiple aspirations which Morgenthau call
‘ambiguous ideologies’. The third one is crucial for it involves the international quest for
national self-determination and the role of UN symbolising peace as an integral idea.

All said and done, ideologies play a crucial role in inter-state relations. It is often used by
countries for justifying their own deeds and also to mobilise like-minded parties. The national
polices of every country is bound by their own domestic national ideologies. Ideologies may
appear open and hidden at the same time. Ideologies are relied upon by the countries for
hiding their actual political interest and also to enhance their intended interest in the
international affairs. To give an oversimplified conception of ideology and to over impose an
end of ideology proposition would be too early. Since the inter-state relations are in a
constant site of power struggle, ideologies are naturally inbuilt in the very conception power
as it is reflective of deeper political ambition that we call ideology. Foreign policies of
nations are, therefore, embedded in ideological moorings not only to enhance its singular
nationalistic interests but also to augment parties in its favour. A system of international
relations that respect equality and dignity of nations irrespective size and ideology is the only
hope.

GLOSSARY
Ideology: Ideology is a cluster of ideas about politics and institutions. In most cases, it is a
consciously advocated, dogmatically asserted social, political or religious slogans or battle
cries.
Cold War: The bloc politics between the capitalist and communist that emerged after the
Second World War is known as the cold war. The capitalist bloc was led by the United States
and Communist bloc was led by the Soviet Union. Such an open campaign had already put
world’s peace at stake as it fuelled a form of new war that came to be known as ‘cold war’.
The League of Nations: It was regarded to be the first modern international association to
work on international peace and peaceful solution of inter-state conflicts. It was established in
the year 1919 immediately after the Second World War.
Containment of communism: In 1947, under the Truman Doctrine, the United States of
America campaigned to provide assistance, including military aid, to countries which were
fighting against communists which came to be known as the open policy of ‘containment of
Communism’. The Marshall Plan of United States can also be mentioned in this regard.

Frequently Asked Question

Q.1. What is ideology?
Ans. The concept of ideology was first coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796 while
referring to ideas. In the words of Karl Manneheim, ideology refers to the particular
ideologies which are used by nations for securing the goals of their national interests. These
are in the form of simple, legal or ethical or biological principles such as justice, equality,
fraternity or natural struggle in relations. Since the age of enlightenment, ideological politics
have had immense impact on political churnings. With the turn of 20th century ideologies
turned out to be much more serious as it began to shape political groups in international
relations.
Q.2. Discuss how ideologies have impacted upon global peace.
Ans. Ideologies and global peace are historically linked to each other. The expansion of
capitalist market led to the rise imperial politics while communism began to challenge
capitalist social formation. The occurrence of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, humiliation
of Germany in the aftermath of the First World War and cold war politics were all
repercussions of ideological politics. Though some theorists have argued about the end of
isms since the 1960s and 1990s, the world politics largely continue to revolve around
ideological political affiliations. For a peaceful of conduct of world’s politics, ideology needs
to be put into a proper perspective.
Q.3. Discuss the impact of ideological divide on international politics after the Second World
War.
Ans. The world before and after the Second World War exposed the blatant ideological
division of World Politics. In 1947, under the Truman Doctrine, the United States of America
campaigned to provide assistance, including military aid, to countries which were fighting
against communists as a part of its open policy of ‘containment of Communism’. Soon after,
the Marshall Plan was announced to give economic aid to like-minded European states. The
imprints of cold war continue to disturb global peace. May it be in the case of minority rights,
or human rights or right to self-determination or peace in regions that are caught in lingering
conflicts.

Q.4. Examine how the formation of the United Nations Organisation marked a positive
impact on world’s peace.

Ans. The formation of UNO in 1945 gave a positive impact on inter-state relations. It
successfully brought together different ideological States at a common platform. The UN
Security Council with five veto power members was designed to bring in different ideologies
together with some privileged position within the international system. The contribution of
UN in mitigating inter-state wars, human rights violations and recognition of right to self-
determination are significant. Despite all the ideological divides, the membership of UNO has
grown to 193 countries today. UN has, today, moved towards international development and
fighting climate change in addition to its attempt to bring down global conflicts. However,
UN has been criticised for inducing more of a liberal political value while enhancing global
capital flow through several multilateral initiatives.

Q.5. Discuss the claim of ‘End of History’ in the context of ideological politics.
Ans. Liberal scholars like Francis Fukuyama took no time to call the disintegration of
erstwhile Soviet Union as ‘the End of History’. Fukuyama strikes back at the core of
communist dialectics by claiming that Hegelian concept of anti-thesis to liberalism was no
more relevant. The nineteen nineties were significantly flooded the debate over the end of
ideology. American scholar Samuel Huntington responding to Fukuyama argued that the
future of international relations was to be more about clash of civilizations. Later, Francis
Fukuyama while reformulating his conception of the ‘end of ideology’ today talks about the
rise of identity politics for dignity and the politics of resentment as a new international
concern.

References
Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the fifties, New
York: Harvard University Press, 2000 (fifth Edition)
Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press, 1992.
Kenneth N. Waltz, Realism and International Politics, Routledge, 2008.
Sumit Ganguly, India’s Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect, Oxford, 2011.

Web links
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ideology-society/The-context-of-international-
relations
https://www.woldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789812795496_0004
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/liberal-internationalism-peace-war-and-
democracy/