End of History by Francis

Fukuyama: A Critique
Abstract

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama attempted to

provide a new paradigm for academia and policymakers to
understand international relations. He argued that after the decline
of communism, and the emergence of democracy, humankind had
reached an endpoint in ideological evolution, what he called the End
of History. Henceforth, he maintains, the world would be dominated
by liberal democracies less inclined to go to war with each other and
more interested in cooperation to maintain peace in the world.

This article summarises the main ideas expressed by Francis

Fukuyama in its highly provocative article

Introduction

The USA fought the Cold War following the theoretical framework
postulated by George Kennan in the highly influential article “Sources
of Soviet Conduct”, published in 1947. In this essay, (known as Article
x), after outlining the reasons for the Soviet conduct, Kennan advised
the USA that the main element of any United States policy toward the
Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant
containment of Russian expansive tendencies.

For him, the Cold War gave the United States its historic opportunity
to assume leadership of what would eventually be described as the
“free world. This Kennanian narrative of the superiority of the Western
way of life over the collective ideals of Soviet Communists, which
needed to be countered by force and contained by anti-Soviet Union
alliances, became the bedrock of the foreign policy of the USA and its
allies throughout the Cold War.

In the twilight years of the once-mighty superpower USSR,

fundamental changes in objective realities necessitated a new
paradigm for academia and policymakers to understand international
relations. Consequently, several ideas started competing to find
acceptance with the intellectuals of the world. One such idea was the
End of History thesis, given by Francis Fukuyama in 1989, two years
before the collapse of the Soviet Union. He later perfected it in his
book, “The End of History and the Last Man.”

Main Points of Fukuyama’s Thesis

What was the essence of the End of History thesis? Well, the idea
behind this thesis is very simple and can be explained easily. However,
before reading his thesis, kindly remember that the concept of an End
of History differs from ideas of an end of the world as expressed in
various religions, which may forecast the destruction of the Earth or of
life on Earth, and the end of the human race as we know it. The End of
History instead proposes a state in which human life continues
indefinitely into the future without any further major changes in
society, a system of governance, or economics.

The End of History is a political and philosophical concept that

supposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may
develop that would constitute the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural
evolution and the final form of human government.

1. Hegelian Framework

A great fan of Hegel, Fukuyama accepts the Hegelian assertion that

ideology, encompassing not just political doctrines, but the religion,
culture, and moral values of society as well, is the driving force of
history. As such, he maintains, to properly view current events, one
must consider the history of ideology and use dialectics, or rather
Hegelian dialectics, for understanding how history (of ideas) moves
forward. Essentially, history moves forward in stages known as the
three dialectical stages of development, namely thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis.

2. Clash of Ideologies

Fukuyama then looks next at mankind’s “common ideological

heritage”, and identifies three such alternatives, namely fascism,
communism, and capitalism. To him, fascism was self-destructive, as
revealed during World War 2 while communism got defeated by
Western liberalism.

3. Triumph of Western Liberalism

Based on the above, he concludes that as the former two have failed to
resolve the core conflicts of human life, it is now only the political-
economic structure of modern liberalism that is the driving force of
history. Consequently, he argues, humankind had reached an endpoint
in ideological evolution by saying, Humanity has reached “not just the
passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the End of
History, that is, the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution.
There can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative
system.”

4. Universal Peace

Accordingly, he maintains, that following the collapse of the Soviet

Union and the end of the Cold War, the world would be dominated by
liberal democracies led by the United States. These democracies would
be less inclined to go to war with each other and more interested in
cooperation to maintain peace in the world.

5. Localised Conflicts

Finally, Fukuyama maintains that the end of history would mean large-
scale ideological conflict would fade, but the conflict would continue on
another level. Those areas that have not reached the end of history will
continue to conflict with those that have. Nationalist conflict and
ethnic conflict have not played themselves out yet, and Fukuyama
predicts they will result in increases in terrorism. As we move to
economic conflict and environmental issues instead of the powerful
and inspiring conflicts of history, Fukuyama supposes that a state of
tediousness may even “serve to get history started once again.”

Strengths of Thesis

What are the strengths of this thesis and where does it fail, either at the
intellectual level or with practical implications, depends upon one’s
frame of mind. With its publication, he initiated a global debate about
the likely post-Cold War scenarios and soon became a recommended
read for anyone interested in understanding international politics.

It is an internally consistent framework of analysis in the sense that if

one agrees with the assumptions he has stated or taken for granted,
then the logical conclusion follows as smoothly as night follows day.
For example, if you believe in his implied assumption that the march of
history is unidirectional and is synonymous with that of Western
civilization, then there is no point in countering it, at least, on the
theoretical plane.

And it still rightly occupies a prominent place in this genre of

discussion because of its in-depth analysis of the complex situation and
the kaleidoscopic reach of his conclusions. Articulating a theoretical
framework for analyzing post-Cold War global politics, he provided a
strong perspective for taking policy actions by some of the leaders in
the world.

One of the main postulations of Fukuyama’s thesis is the democratic

peace theory, which argues that mature democracies rarely or never go
to war with one another. One major piece of empirical evidence for this
postulation is the elimination of interstate warfare in South America,
Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe among countries that moved from
military dictatorships to liberal democracies.

Similarly, according to several studies, the end of the Cold War and the
subsequent increase in the number of liberal democratic states were
accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare,
interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of
refugees and displaced persons.

Weaknesses of the Thesis

All great ideas, books, and personalities are invariably controversial,

which makes them great. Thus, the End of History thesis by Francis
Fukuyama is not without its share of controversy.

1. Not an Original Idea

Although the name Francis Fukuyama has become synonymous with

the End of History thesis, he was not the author of the term itself. The
phrase, the end of history, was first used by French philosopher and
mathematician Antoine Augustin Cournot in 1861 “to refer to the end
of the historical dynamic with the perfection of civil society”.

The formal development of the idea of an “end of history” is most

closely associated with Hegel, who maintained that the French
Revolution, which signalled the triumph of the liberal and democratic
system, was the endpoint of history. He argued that the ideas of man’s
universal right to freedom and government by consent had been
realized in the form of an ideology that could not be improved upon.

After him, this idea was re-interpreted by Alexandre Kojève, who

argued that conflict over the type of “large” issues that characterized
history would cease and most economic activity would remain.

2. Uni-directional March of History

As stated earlier, if you believe in his implied assumption that the

march of history is unidirectional, then there is no point in countering
it, at least, on the theoretical plane.

However, the reality is quite the opposite. History has never

progressed in one direction and is affected by so many constants and
variables that it is impossible to predict its future course of action with
reasonable accuracy.

3. Euro-centric Bias
Similarly, his premise that this uni-directional movement of history is
identifiable with the march of Western civilization, is questionable. It
not only neglects the invaluable contributions made by other
civilizations in the past but also ignores the possibility of the formation
of a theoretical and practical alternative by these civilisations in the
future. In his analysis, the only role of non-Western societies is that of
being dependent variables or subjects of the expansion of Western
values and institutions.

This reductionism makes the experiences of the Western civilization a

universal phenomenon while trivializing the non-western civilizations
as non-entities. Similarly, it does not sufficiently take into account the
power of ethnic loyalties and religious fundamentalism as a counter-
force to the spread of liberal democracy, with the specific example of
Islamic fundamentalism, or radical Islam, as the most powerful of
these.

4. Oversimplification

Besides the above objections, the End of History thesis of Francis

Fukuyama suffers from several serious flaws, even as an analytical
framework. In his zeal to postulate a grand general theory of post-Cold
War international relations, he has tried to oversimplify a complex
situation by selectively applying facts and figures that he feels
substantiate his views.

5. Propaganda Piece
Keeping in view his career record as an employee of a think tank
responsible for providing inputs to the American deep state, several
scholars have criticized him for formulating a theory of endism to
prepare the theoretical basis of the status quo, which the USA wanted
to maintain in the post-Cold War era. Some argue that Fukuyama
presents “American-style” democracy as the only “correct” political
system and argues that all countries must inevitably follow this
particular system of government.

He did this to legitimize and formulate the theoretical framework of

the New World Order. Because to create a new world order, the old one
must have an end. To legitimize the US’s leadership role, he uses
Hegel. Because he also ends history with the victory of one state. To
show the USA’s everlasting victory, he had to create a very optimistic
perspective. Maybe those who later caused the deaths of millions of
people in the Middle East and Afghanistan were trying to transplant
the end-of-history recommendation of liberal democracy to societies
still living in the 16th and 17th centuries.

6. Single-factor-driven conception of History

Fukuyama’s methodological approach reduces the essence of historical

continuity to one predominant factor: ‘the struggle for recognition.
This reduction creates a highly overgeneralized historical theory. This
pragmatic approach may lead to a hugely deterministic theory of
history and a very categorical interpretation of the historical past.
7. Practical Utility: Falsified

Francis Fukuyama postulated that once liberal democracy has

triumphed, there will be peace in the world, as liberal democracies do
not fight with each other. However, his thesis was completely falsified,
first in Bosnia. Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia marked the end of the
optimistic dreams of Fukuyama’s endism. Because none of the liberal
democratic countries tried to end this non-humanitarian event. The
states that finished their evolution did not act as they had to.
Moreover, the cases of Kosovo and especially the events of September
11, 2001, in the USA show that nothing has come to an end, instead,
world history will probably face important transformation processes in
the future.

CONCLUSION

He tried to make a long-term civilizational analysis but only analyzed

short-term indicators. So he may use the term ‘civilizational
transformation’, instead of ‘end of history. The era that was tried to be
analyzed and defined by Fukuyama was only one of the turning points
in world history. As we can see, history is part of an ongoing
transformation process that needs further analysis. Consequently, we
can say that Fukuyama wanted to give a name to the situation after the
collapse of communism. He gave it the name ‘the end of history, with a
one-dimensional, ethnocentric perspective.

Tail Piece
In October 2001, Fukuyama, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece,
responded to the declarations that the September 11 attacks had
disproved his views by stating that “time and resources are on the side
of modernity, and I see no lack of a will to prevail in the United States
today.” He also noted that his original thesis “does not imply a world
free from conflict, or the disappearance of culture as a distinguishing
characteristic of societies.

Fukuyama has also stated that his thesis was incomplete, but for a
different reason: “There can be no end of history without an end of
modern natural science and technology” (quoted from Our Post-
human Future). Fukuyama predicts that humanity’s control of its
evolution will have a great and possibly terrible effect on liberal
democracy.
National Interest: Concept
and Components
Abstract

Throughout history, every nation-state has faced multifarious

challenges, big or small. A timely, appropriate, and adequate
response to these challenges is the essence of the national interest.
However, National Interest is a vague and ambiguous term that
carries a meaning per the context in which it is used by statesmen
and policymakers to justify the actions of their states.

This article tries to explain this concept in an easy-to-understand

manner and lists the four components of the National Interest along
with four objectives to be achieved under each component.

Introduction

“There are neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies in

international relations, only permanent interests.”

-Lord Palmerston

The foreign policy of a country is not made or implemented in a

vacuum; it owes its formulation to several variables and constants-
historical, geographical, external, internal, etc. Using the general
framework, we can categorise the determinants of the foreign policy of
a country under the following three headings:

I. National Interest

II. Strategic Culture

III. Security Apparatus

It may be noted that while the national interest of a country is a

comparatively long-term constant, its strategic culture is a medium-
term phenomenon, subject to change with changing perceptions of the
incumbents or the entry of a new lot of policymakers. However, the
regional apparatus is subject to change in a short period of time, or
even immediately, if there are substantial changes in regional or global
geopolitics or the occurrence of any trends or events.

What is the national interest?

National Interest is a vague and ambiguous term that carries a

meaning per the context in which it is used by statesmen and
policymakers to justify the actions of their states. While Morgenthau
equated it with “survival—the protection of physical, political, and
cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states”,
Charles Lerche defined it as the “general, long-term, and continuing
purpose which the state, the nation, and the government all see
themselves as serving.” For this article, we can agree with the
Brookings Institute which defines it in the following way:

“What a nation feels to be necessary to its security and well-being…

National interest reflects the general and continuing ends for which a
nation acts.”

However, it must be pointed out that any objective of foreign policy

cannot qualify as a national interest unless it has the committed
support of a vast majority of its people, expressed through elected
representatives. Thus, only widely shared aspirations capable of
guiding long-term policy formulation cutting across all political
divisions in a country can be termed national interest.

Importance of National Interest

The importance of clearly defining the national interest of a country in

terms of long-term goals and objectives based on an objective
assessment of the current situation can not be over-emphasized. Such
a declaration performs several key functions.

1. Consensus Document: Firstly, it is a consensus document,

stated explicitly in both official doctrines and unofficial
publications such as foreign policy or national security
doctrines, concepts, or strategies. It, therefore, provides clear-
cut guidelines to those responsible for policy formulation and
 its implementation, establishing a hierarchy of national
priorities to avoid the ineffective or inefficient use of scarce
resources
2. Disciplines Politics: Secondly, as a manifestation of long-
term higher-order collective wisdom, it overrides the
manifestos of political parties if they are not in sync with the
dictates of the national interest. Consequently, national
interest disciplines politicians and significantly restricts their
freedom of action.
3. Restricts Power Misuse: Thirdly, besides restraining
opposition, a clearly-defined national interest puts reasonable
constraints on the government to obviate the possibility of
misusing this consensus document by misinterpreting any
part of it to gain political advantage over the opposition.
4. Evaluation Criteria: Fourthly, clearly stated national
interests provide citizens, civil society organisations, and the
media with strict criteria for evaluating the policy conducted
by those who make national policy decisions.
5. Avoiding Policy Capture: Fifthly, it also helps in avoiding
“policy capture,” whereby the powerful elements in the state
or society can hijack the policy formulation for their own
vested interests instead of pursuing the achievement of
objectives of national interest. Even in highly developed
democratic countries, big corporations, particularly those
dealing with arms manufacturing, and oil, are known to push
their own interests to the national level and garner
government support
 6. Confidence Building: Finally, by publicly pronouncing its
national interest it not only creates confidence in the public
about the survival and growth of the country but also gives
clear signals to the outside world about its intentions, and its
capabilities to defend those interests.

From the above discussion, one can realise how important it is to have
a comprehensive set of national policies for safeguarding the national
interest. For these policies to be effective, they should not only be
individually internally consistent but also externally consistent in the
sense that no two policies should conflict with each other. Every policy
must be a part of a comprehensive whole, creating what is called a
synergistic effect.

How National Interest is Formulated?

Although its precise definition may differ from country to country and
from time to time, the framework for the determination of the national
interest of a country essentially consists of four interrelated and
interdependent propositions. Each proposition has four objectives, and
each objective, in turn, may have several goals (SMART goals-specific,
measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound). To achieve these
objectives and goals, elected representatives make a comprehensive
national policy consisting of various socioeconomic and political
policies. Foreign policy is one such component of this national policy.
Once approved, these policies are handed over to the concerned civil
servants by the cabinet/ministers in charge of the respective ministries
for implementation. Here enter the civil servants, who make strategies
on how best to implement these policies and achieve the goals and
objectives laid down in them most efficiently and effectively. Here are
the four propositions and the objectives therein of national interest.

A. Territorial Integrity and sovereignty

B. Economic Well-being of the People

C. Internal Cohesion and Harmony

D. Regional Peace and stability

A brief description of each component would be in order

A. Territorial Integrity and National Sovereignty

The first component of a country’s national interest is to maintain

territorial integrity in the sense that, in the event of any aggression
from outside or internal subversion, the country can defend itself.
Related to the above is the preservation of its sovereignty in the sense
that the state can take all the decisions without being under duress or
the command of outside forces.
There cannot be two opinions about the overriding importance of
maintaining territorial integrity and preserving national sovereignty in
the formulation of the national interest of a country. To exist as an
independent, sovereign nation-state, the country tries to achieve the
following four objectives.

1. Amicable settlement of any territorial dispute it has with the

neighbouring country, particularly if it is so vital that you must fight a
war if necessary

2. Maintaining well-trained and well-equipped defence forces by

providing them with state-of-the-art training and equipping them with
modern weaponry.

3. Building credible indigenous defence armaments capabilities to

attain self-sufficiency in the production of conventional arms and
ammunition and acquiring an effective nuclear, strategic, and tactical,
capability to compensate for the lack of adequate strategic depth and
comparatively inadequate resources against its adversary.

4. Cultivating friendly relations with global powers to provide it with

the requisite diplomatic support in case of external aggression

That is why a medium-sized country like Pakistan has been cultivating

friendly relations with those countries, capable of meeting its defence
needs. Pakistan joined American-sponsored defence pacts like SEATO
and CENTO and concluded a Mutual Defence Pact with the USA in the
1950s precisely for this reason. When the USA imposed an embargo on
the supply of military equipment during the 1965 War with India,
Pakistan had no option but to court China. At the same time, Pakistan
has been maintaining friendly relations with its neighbours and
Muslim countries for diplomatic support in case of external aggression.

B. Wellbeing of its Citizens

The second component of the national interest of a country is the well-

being of its citizens, which is ensured by ensuring that the country has
the necessary wherewithal to improve the quality of life of its citizens
by meeting their basic needs at an affordable cost. This, in turn, is
dependent on a country growing at a rate commensurate with its
survival and growth needs. For this purpose, a state tries to achieve the
following four objectives:

1. Achieving sustainable and inclusive growth whose gains are

distributed equitably among all the regions of the country and
all the sections of society.
2. Access to foreign markets not only to ensure an uninterrupted
supply of essential resources, including technology but also to
sell its exportable surplus at competitive rates
3. Attracting Foreign Direct Investment to develop its human
and natural resources, modernizing its economy, and
upscaling its technology base.
 4. Obtaining foreign economic assistance from bilateral or
multilateral sources to bridge the resource gap

A state that cannot meet the basic needs of the people loses its
legitimacy, resulting in an existential threat to the country itself.
History is replete with instances of states breaking due to economic
shortfalls. After all, one of the main reasons for the breakup of the
former USSR was its inability to provide its citizens with the basic
goods of daily use.

C. Maintaining Internal Cohesion and Harmony

The third component of the national interest of a country is to

maintain its internal cohesion and harmony. With few exceptions, all
modern nation-states are multi-ethnic entities in which the different
communities compete for scarce resources. This is healthy competition
if it remains confined within constitutional limits. However, if some
groups cross those boundaries, it may weaken the very foundations of
the state and create an existential threat to the country. Thus, the
national interest of the country lies in containing that unrest instead of
improving its cohesion. For this purpose, it has four objectives.

1. Formulating a shared vision of a just and prosperous country

enshrined in a duly formulated with consensus and formally
approved constitution
 2. Ensuring that this shared vision is implemented by well-
functioning, vibrant institutions to create stakes for everyone
to feel satisfied in a united nation-state.
3. Main-streaming the marginalized sections and disgruntled
elements of society by ensuring good governance at different
levels of interaction and taking affirmative action on a
selective basis where needed
4. Strengthening the democratic process by promoting true
political culture (of tolerance and accommodation),
strengthening its democratic structures (of parliaments,
election commissions), and letting the various democratic
processes (of holding elections at federal, provincial, and local
levels) continue uninterruptedly

Nation-building has been one of the biggest challenges almost every

post-colonial state has faced since its independence. Its national
interest demands building a nation with a vision of common destiny
out of a multitude of culturally distinct nationalities with years of rich
heritage, languages, and culture into a nation that is at peace within
and at peace without.

It strives to mainstream the marginalized sections and disgruntled

elements of society by ensuring good governance at different levels of
interaction and taking affirmative action on a selective basis where
needed. It strengthens the democratic dividends by promoting a true
political culture (of tolerance and accommodation), strengthening its
democratic structures (of parliaments, election commissions), and
letting the various democratic processes (of holding elections at
federal, provincial, and local levels) continue uninterruptedly.

D. Regional Peace and Stability

Lastly, the fourth essential component of the national interest of a

country is the preservation of regional peace and stability in the region
where it is located or has vital interests. While reserving its right to
defend its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, every peace-
loving nation-state, acting responsibly in global and regional affairs,
believes in peaceful coexistence. Consequently, regional peace is the
cornerstone of the national interest of every state, for which it has four
objectives.

1. Maintaining friendly relations with all the bordering countries

in the true spirit of non-interference, mutual respect, and
amicable settlement of outstanding disputes.
2. Establishing the writ of the state in every nook and cranny of
the country so that there are no safe havens for terrorists
within the country, which could create trouble inside or
outside
3. Striving for the establishment of a regional, broad-based
framework of counterterrorism to obviate the possibility of its
spillover into your country
 4. Promotion of regional cooperation, development, and trade to
reap the benefits of economies of scale and comparative
advantage of natural endowments

No country, however powerful it may be, can live in peace and enjoy
prosperity if there is turmoil just outside its borders. A civil war in a
neighbouring country not only results in the influx of refugees with
attendant consequences, but it may also result in internal turmoil if a
section of the population starts taking part in that external conflict,
crisis, or war based on ethnic affinity or religious feelings.

Conclusion

Throughout history, every nation-state has faced multifarious

challenges, big or small. Ranging from survival and security to
economic growth and global image, these challenges can stem from
any source—internal dynamics, external situations, or a combination of
both. Some of these may be due to their own historical and structural
contradictions or just due to global fault lines, threatening their very
existence. A timely, appropriate, and adequate response to these
challenges is the essence of the national interest.

Foreign Policy-Tools &

Implements
Abstract

Once formulated, the foreign policy of a country is implemented with

the help of several tools available in the toolkit of the foreign office.

This article explains those instruments, namely Diplomacy, Economic

Diplomacy, the use or threat of Military Force, Soft Power, and
Alliance Building

Introduction

Once formulated, the foreign policy of a country is implemented with

the help of one or more of the following tools available in the toolkit of
the foreign office.

A. Diplomacy

B. Economic Diplomacy: Aid, Trade & Sanctions

C. Use/Threat of Military Force

D. Soft Power

E. Alliance Building

Let us explain them in detail.

A. Diplomacy

Diplomacy is the act of dealing with other nations, usually through

negotiations and discussions. It involves meetings between political
leaders, sending diplomatic messages, and making public statements
about the relationship between countries. Diplomacy is as old as
international relations. The Amarna letters written between the
Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt and the Amurru rulers of
Cannan during the 14th century BCE are one of the oldest diplomatic
writings. The Ottoman, Byzantine, Chinese, and Roman empires had
diplomatic missions. India, with its numerous princely states, has a
rich history of diplomacy. These can be called the predecessors of
modern-day diplomatic missions and relations, but there were no
defined laws governing diplomats, missions, and mission objectives.

In Europe, early modern diplomacy’s origins are often traced back to

Italy in the early Renaissance period. The first embassies as we know
them were established in the 13th century. The state of Milan in
Northern Italy played a leading role in spreading diplomacy through
diplomatic missions. Venice and Tuscany were vital, flourishing
centres of diplomacy from the 14th century onward. It was in Italy that
most of the modern concepts of diplomacy arose. Niccolo Machiavelli’s
“The Prince” is the first book that covers the issue of diplomacy.
Machiavelli is considered the founder of modern political science, in
which diplomacy plays an integral role. Milan was the first state to
send a representative to the court of France in 1455, marking the
beginning of the written history of diplomacy.
Most diplomacy occurs behind the scenes as officials hold secret
negotiations or meet privately to discuss key issues. Depending on the
relative power of a country and the needs of the time, states generally
pursue diplomacy in one of three ways:

1. Unilaterally: The state acts alone, without the assistance or

consent of any other state.
2. Bilaterally: The state works in conjunction with another
state.
3. Multilaterally: The state works in conjunction with several
other states.

There are pros and cons to each of these three approaches. Acting
unilaterally, for example, allows a state to do what it wants without
compromise, but it must also bear all the costs itself. Acting with allies,
on the other hand, allows a state to maintain good relations and share
the diplomatic burden, but this often requires compromise.

Diplomacy has been an essential tool of foreign policy in the past and
will remain so in the future. However, its success or failure depends
upon so many constants and variables that it is difficult to ascertain
whether a successful case will result from the efforts of the actors,
diplomats, and political leaders, involved, or the outcome of fortuitous
circumstances. Some of the cases of successful diplomatic efforts are as
follows.
1. Creation of World Institutions: No one can deny the
crucial role world institutions like the World Bank, the UNO,
the IMF, etc have played in preventing wars, and helping
countries minimize poverty and development; all were created
as a result of diplomatic processes
2. Rebuilding post-WW2 Europe: After the end of WW2,
the USA pumped in $13 billion in economic aid under its
Marshall Plan to help its war-ravaged European allies stand
on their own two feet. The plan not only jump-started the
European economies but also inhibited the spread of
communism, and helped in the formation of NATO and the
European Union, both of which included its former enemies,
Italy and Germany.
3. Preventing the Spread of Nuclear
Weapons/Technology: Thanks to diplomatic efforts, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) succeeded in
finalizing the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT
4. Rapprochement: The Opening to China: President Nixon’s
1972 decision to end its quarter-century hostility towards
China is the classic case of diplomacy over non-diplomatic
measures. It not only resulted in friendly relations with China
but also laid the groundwork for future relations with the
Soviet Union, and helped the U.S. exit the Vietnam War.
5. The Dayton Accords: In November 1995, the Dayton
Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended a 3.5-
year-long Bosnian War. It was signed in Dayton, Ohio,
following negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State Warren
 Christopher, negotiator Richard Holbrooke, and General
Wesley Clark.
6. Rise of the Non-aligned Movement: Non-aligned
movement has played an extremely important role in
preventing bloodshed creating a platform for a large number
of countries to keep themselves aloof from the rivalry of the
two antagonistic blocks during the cold war
7. USA-USSR Détente: Similar to the thawing of relations
between China and the USA in 1972, the diplomatic efforts of
the two countries resulted in the lessening of hostilities
between the USA and the USSR
8. Camp David Accords: It was an uphill task to forge a
friendship between the Arab countries and Israel; however,
the diplomacy bore fruit in the shape of the Camp David
Accords

On the other hand, we can list the following cases where diplomacy was
either relegated to a lower position or did not work:

1. Two World Wars: Both, WW1 and WW2, were classic cases
of failures of global diplomacy to avert bloodshed
2. Dropping of Atomic Bombs: It could have been averted if
diplomacy had been effective in the last days of the war.
3. Iran-IRAQ War: Again, the failure of the diplomats or
diplomacy not given a chance to play its role
 4. US Attack on Afghanistan: Taliban were willing to hand
over OBL
5. Syrian Crises: Deliberate Efforts to Scuttle a Diplomatic
Solution

B. Economic Diplomacy

The use of economic and financial tools such as foreign aid, trade
concessions/denial, and the imposition of economic sanctions has been
one of the most widely used tools of foreign policy in the repertoire of
global and regional powers.

B/1: Foreign Aid

Foreign aid, whether civilian or military, has been used by all the global
and regional powers to achieve the objectives set in the pursuit of
safeguarding their respective national interests. There are two types of
foreign aid:

1. Military Aid: States donate, sell, or trade military

equipment and technology to affect the military balance of
power in certain key regions of the world.
2. Economic Aid: States donate or loan money to other
counties to boost economic development.
Thus, economic assistance may be used to prevent friendly
governments from falling under the influence of unfriendly ones or as
payment for the right to establish or use military bases on foreign soil.
Foreign aid may also be used to achieve a country’s diplomatic goals,
enabling it to gain diplomatic recognition, garner support for its
positions in international organizations, or increase its diplomats’
access to foreign officials.

The United States, the Soviet Union, and their allies during the Cold
War used this diplomatic tool to foster political alliances and strategic
advantages; it was withheld to punish states that seemed too close to
the other side. The Marshall Plan not only helped the war-ravaged
European countries stand again on their own two feet but also obviated
the possibility of some of them falling under the influence of the USSR.
Similarly, the USA and the USSR provided huge amounts of civilian
and military aid to less-developed countries to gain influence and stop
them from joining the opposing camp.

However, every piece of foreign aid provided is not for pure self-
interest; countries also provide aid to relieve the suffering caused by
natural or man-made disasters such as famine, disease, and war, to
promote economic development, to help establish or strengthen
political institutions, and to address a variety of transnational
problems including disease, terrorism, and other crimes, as well as the
destruction of the environment.

B/2: Trade Concessions/Denial

Along with foreign aid, trade-related measures have been intertwined
with foreign policy as a two-way process. Sometimes foreign policy is
tailored to promote trade expansion, and sometimes trade concessions
are used to achieve foreign policy objectives. For example, the
European Union uses its GSP PLUS concessions to extract its foreign
policy objectives of social compliance from those countries that it
deems violating labour laws and thus adversely affecting its
competitiveness. Similarly, the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese
imports into the USA is nothing but the use of its trade to achieve its
foreign policy objectives.

On the other hand, countries use foreign policy tools such as military
power or economic diplomacy, to gain access to other countries’
resources or markets. In the 3rd century BCE, China used its military
power to maintain the Silk Road for its value in trade. Presently, it is
using its Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR) for the same purposes.
Commodore Perry sailed to Japan in 1853–54 to open that market to
U.S. trade, and eleven years later the United States concluded the
Treaty of Wangxia with China, again to support trade. In each case,
foreign policy was enlisted to serve national trade interests.

B/3: Economic Sanctions

It is the favourite tool of the foreign policy of the USA and its allies,
whereby they impose economic sanctions ranging from banning
imports from or exports to a country deemed to be hostile to their
national interest. The conventional wisdom is that economic sanctions
do not work, i.e., they have a low rate of success. One quantitative
study estimates that they have a success rate of 35%. To describe this
success rate as low, however, implies some criterion of judgment, a
criterion that is rarely specified. Is 0.350 a low batting average for a
baseball player?

C. Use or Threat of Military Force

Carl Philipp von Clausewitz, a Prussian general, and military theorist,

rightly stated that “War is the continuation of politics by other
means.”. In some cases, states use military force or the threat of
military force to achieve their foreign policy objectives. The use of
military forces often involves stronger states pressuring weaker states
to get what they want. The practice of forcing a weak state to comply
with a stronger state via the threat of force is known as gunboat
diplomacy. It refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the
aid of conspicuous displays of naval power, implying or constituting a
direct threat of warfare should terms not be agreeable to the superior
force.

In the final days of World War II, Finland reached a peace agreement
with the Soviet Union. Even though both countries knew that the
Soviets could have easily overwhelmed the Finns, neither wanted war,
and the Soviets preferred to use their military elsewhere. The terms of
the peace treaty gave the Soviets everything they wanted, so much so
that Finland almost became a puppet of the Soviet Union.
Throughout the Cold War, the United States relied on the strength of
its nuclear and conventional weapons to deter the Soviet Union from
invading Western Europe.

D. Soft Power

The use of soft power enjoyed by a state in the form of its cultural
superiority, historical relationship, or the clout enjoyed by a state’s
Diaspora has gained currency as a tool of foreign policy. Introduced by
Joseph Nye in the 1980s as a policy instrument in international
relations, “soft power” is the ability to influence the behaviour of others
to get the outcomes you want. It stresses co-opting and inducing
people rather than coercing them with threats. As such, it can be
contrasted with ‘hard power, which is the use of coercion and payment.
Although Soft power is a policy instrument for a nation-state, it is
mostly used by NGOs or international institutions to obtain the
outcomes they want.

According to Nye, a country’s soft power rests on three resources: a) its

culture, which must be attractive to others; b) its political values when
it lives up to them at home and abroad, and c) its foreign policies when
others see them as legitimate and having moral authority. In his words

“A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because

other countries, admiring its values, emulating its example, and
aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness, want to follow it. In
this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract others in
world politics, not only to force them to change by threatening military
force or economic sanctions. This soft power—getting others to want
the outcomes that you want — co-opts people rather than coerces
them.”

Soft power resources are the assets that produce attraction, which
often leads to acquiescence. Nye asserts that “Seduction is always more
effective than coercion, and many values like democracy, human
rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive. However, it
must be remembered that soft power is a double-edged weapon; if the
citizens of a country are attracted by the ideas, ideals, and policies of
another state, they can also be repelled by these very traits if they are
repulsive enough to create a bad image of the state or society.
Obviously, in this respect, the role of the media cannot be
overemphasised.

The Soft Power 30, an annual index published by Portland

Communications and the USC Center on Public Diplomacy for 2018,
ranked the Western countries as the leading sovereign states in soft
power, with the United Kingdom at the top. On the other hand, the
2016–17 Monocle Soft Power Survey ranked the United States as the
leading country in soft power. Both the Soft Power 30 and Monocle
gave France the top spot in 2019.

E. Alliance Building
Building alliances with those who mutually share their views on foreign
policy issues is an age-old practice that has been used successfully
throughout history for waging wars or defending against foreign
aggression. From the early writings of the Indian philosopher Kautilya,
more than two thousand years ago, to modern-day scholars, alliances
have been treated as a universal component of the relations between
political units, irrespective of their degree of organisation and location
in time and space. This state of affairs, if maintained, will continue in
the foreseeable future.

While alliance-building can be a useful instrument to ward off the

threat of foreign aggression, it also entails the possibility of
unnecessary involvement in an unwanted war started by one member
of the alliance. Several studies find that such defensive alliances deter
conflict, but many question these findings. It is generally believed that
alliance commitments deterred conflict in the pre-nuclear era but had
no statistically meaningful impact on war in the post-nuclear era.
Another study finds that while alliance commitments deter conflict
between sides with a recent history of conflict, alliances tend to
provoke conflicts between states without such a history.

Most research suggests that democracies are more reliable allies than
non-democracies. One of the most profound effects of alliances can be
seen in technological innovation, due to conduits of knowledge flows
that are open between allies but closed between rivals.
Determinants of Foreign
Policy
Abstract

Foreign policy is neither formulated nor operates in a vacuum,

rather, it is a conditioned response to the events and trends
prevailing in the environment, both domestic and external. In normal
discussions, you will find a long list of determinants of the foreign
policy of a country.

This article categorizes all the important determinants of foreign

policy under three headings: national National Interest, Strategic
Culture, and Regional Apparatus for ease of understanding and
memorization.

Introduction

Throughout history, every state has had one overriding objective-

improving the quality of life of its citizens. This, in turn, has three
interrelated and interdependent components

1. Standard of Living: Increasing the quantity, quality and

access to economic goods and services-food, shelter, clothing,
health, education, etc.)
2. Good Governance: Increasing the quantity, quality and
access of political goods and services-protection from external
aggression, internal law and order, access to justice, political
empowerment, etc.
3. Social Development: Increasing the quantity, quality and
access of social goods and services; a classless society, equality
of opportunity, cultural enhancement, absence of
discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc.

To achieve this objective, the government formulates a set of

interrelated and interdependent national policies relating to social,
economic, and political fields, along with suitable strategies to
implement them.
Foreign policy is one component of this set of national
policies.

A country’s foreign policy can be defined as the strategies it chooses to

safeguard its national interests and achieve its goals by interacting with
other countries and non-state actors. A complex, and iterative process
involving multiple stakeholders, it is neither formulated nor operates
in a vacuum, rather, it is a conditioned response to the events and
trends prevailing in the environment, both domestic and external.

Determinants of Foreign Policy

In normal discussions, you will find a long list of determinants of the

foreign policy of a country. There is nothing objectionable in such list-
making except that it becomes too unwieldy to remember. Accordingly,
in this article, I have discussed these multiple determinants of foreign
policy under the following three headings:

A. National Interest

B. Strategic Culture

C. Security Apparatus (Regional/Global)

I hope this framework will become a standard tool of analysis for

discussing the determinants of the foreign policy of any country.
Let me explain them in a bit of detail

A. National Interest

National interest carries a meaning depending on the context in which

it is used by statesmen and policymakers to justify the actions of their
states. For this article, we can agree with the Brookings Institute which
defines it in the following way:

“What a nation feels to be necessary to its security and wellbeing...

National interest reflects the general and continuing ends for which a
nation acts.”

Components of National Interest

Every nation-state faces multifarious challenges, either due to internal

dynamics or external situations. Accordingly, a state formulates a
comprehensive national policy consisting of a host of social, economic,
and political policies to ensure that its vital interests are safeguarded.

Foreign policy is part and parcel of this national policy, which is

formulated to achieve the objectives set to safeguard its national
interest and consists of the following four interrelated and
interdependent components;

A/1. Maintaining Territorial Integrity

The first component of a country’s national interest is to maintain its
territorial integrity and national sovereignty by being able to defend
itself from any external aggression and taking all the decisions without
being under duress or the command of outside forces.

A/2. Economic Wellbeing of the People

The second component of the national interest of a country is the well-

being of its citizens by ensuring decent standards of living for its
populace. This, in turn, is dependent on a country growing at a rate
commensurate with its survival and growth needs.

A/3. Maintaining Internal Order/Cohesion

The third component of the national interest of a country is to

maintain internal cohesion and harmony among its diverse
communities. If some groups cross the limits set in the national
interest, it may weaken the very foundations of the state and create an
existential threat to the country. Thus, the national interest of the
country lies in containing that unrest instead of improving its cohesion.

A/4. Preserving Regional Peace

Lastly, the preservation of regional peace and stability is an essential

component of the national interest of a country. No country, however
powerful it may be, can live in peace and enjoy prosperity if there is
turmoil just outside its borders; a civil war in a neighbouring country
results in an influx of refugees with attendant consequences.

As a part of its overall national policy, the foreign policy of a country

strives to achieve the objectives set to safeguard its national interests
described above. For example, to ensure its territorial integrity and
preserve its national sovereignty, a state must have well-trained and
well-equipped defence forces as well as a defence armament capability.
As such, one of the prime objectives of foreign policy would be to
cultivate friendly relations with those countries that are capable of
meeting their needs for requisite military equipment.

Similarly, to improve the standard of living of its citizens, a state must

have a vibrant economy growing at a reasonable rate, for which it
needs access to foreign markets not only to ensure an uninterrupted
supply of essential resources, including technology but also to sell its
exportable surplus at competitive rates. Only a vibrant foreign policy
can help a country achieve this objective.

B. Strategic Culture

While the prime driver of the contents and direction of the foreign
policy of a country is its national interest, it is the mindset of the ruling
elite that ultimately defines the national interest and formulates the
objectives to be achieved and how. Known as the Strategic Culture in
academic discussions, this mindset is a set of shared beliefs,
assumptions, and modes of behaviour derived from common
experiences and accepted narratives. It is this strategic culture that
shapes the collective identity of the country and determines the
appropriate ends and means to accomplish its national security
objectives.

Components of Strategic Culture

The strategic culture of any nation-state is a synergistic result of the

following six constants and variables:

1. Geography

2. History

3. Economy

4. Society

5. Polity

6. Technology

Let me explain them in a bit more detail

B/1. Strategic Culture: Geography

A country’s unique geographical location, availability of resources,
relative size, topography, shape, and climate have a tremendous impact
on its foreign policy. Geography is said to be 80% of the foreign policy
of a country, and rightly so. You cannot change your neighbours with
whom you have to interact most, and formulate your foreign policy
accordingly. The geographical shape and contours of a country also
have a lot to do with the development of its strategic culture. Similarly,
the geostrategic location of a country can be an asset or a liability,
depending on the prevailing geopolitical situation. Sometimes, a small
country with a geostrategic location or abundant availability of a
natural resource can play a larger-than-life role in international
politics.

No doubt, new technological developments such as supersonic jets,

intercontinental ballistic missiles, and rockets have lessened the
importance of the geography of a country in the overall calculus of its
foreign policy formulation, yet the importance of geography is still
intact as the most important pillar of the foreign policy of every state.

B/2. Strategic Culture: History

After geography, it is the history of the country that plays an extremely

important role in the formation of the strategic culture of a country.
Learning lessons and taking cues from the historical legacies, i.e., how
it came into existence, the travails and traumas, past war and peace
experiences, failures, and successes, etc., the strategic elite of the
country develops a perception about the challenges the country is
facing and how to respond to them.

B/3. Strategic Culture: Society

The structure and nature of society, the nature of social groups, and the
degree of conflict and harmony among various social groups are also
important determinants of the foreign policy of a country. A society
characterized by strong internal conflict and strife acts as a source of
weakness for foreign policy. A society of united, enlightened, and
disciplined people with a high degree of group harmony is always a
source of strength. It materially influences their ability to secure the
objectives of national interest during international bargaining.

B/4. Strategic Culture: Economy

The contents, contours, and focus of the foreign policy of any country
are directly dependent upon its stage of economic development, which
determines the direction of a country’s foreign policy in pursuit of
access to sources of supply of the resources needed as well as the
markets for the exportable surplus. Thus, a country desperately
needing to import oil has to maintain friendly relations with one or
more oil-producing and exporting countries.

Secondly, it determines the amount of influence one has in the global

arena. That’s why the developed countries have much clout to play a
larger-than-life role in global affairs because of their huge
technologically advanced export surplus and the necessary
wherewithal to offer aid and trade concessions to those still developing
nations.

Thirdly, image building; other things being equal, if a country is

experiencing a healthy growth rate over a period of time, its image
automatically starts improving. No one gives two hoots to a country
that is constantly begging donors for bailouts.

B/5. Strategic Culture: Polity

Who are the dominant decision-makers in foreign policy formulation

to determine the direction, contents, and priorities of its foreign
policy? If the armed forces are calling the shots, then foreign policy will
be heavily biased towards the security imperatives. If elected
representatives are in charge of the foreign policy process, the well-
being of the public will take precedence.

Similarly, the political structure of the country, whether democratic or

authoritarian, would have a significant bearing on its foreign policy
formulation. In a country run according to modern democratic
principles and practice, this process will be slow but stable; however, in
an authoritarian state, it will be quick but maybe short-term.

B/6. Strategic Culture: Technology

The introduction of technology into any field is disruptive; it forces you
to not only change your ways of working as it requires new skills to use
it in an environment dictated by the technology itself, but also compels
you to think differently. Think about the introduction of word
processing software, which displaced typewriters, and you can easily
understand what I mean. The introduction of military technology is no
exception.

It changes the way the military elite perceives the threats posed by the
acquisition of new military technology by the adversary and how to
respond to that new threat; they in turn change the mindset of the
political elite, which is to take the final decision. Thus, if the enemy has
acquired ballistic missiles, we need to counter that threat by acquiring
the anti-ballistic missile system on the one hand and also acquiring the
missiles ourselves from the same source or their equivalents. That
means our foreign policy will have a marked tilt towards those
countries that can provide us with missiles. North Korea? Yes, that is
why a country like Pakistan has such cozy relations with North Korea,
which is otherwise considered a pariah in global politics.

C. Regional Apparatus

Different from the strategic culture, which refers to the mindset of the
policymakers formed over a period, the Regional Apparatus is the
appreciation of the current ground realities, i.e., the current situation
in the region or at the global level, which could, adversely or positively,
impact the efforts of a country to safeguard its national interest. As
such, it is an objective assessment of the current situation and would
change with any change in any constant or variable.

Components of Security Apparatus

Generally, there are three interdependent and interrelated

determinants of a country’s regional apparatus.

1. Regional Geopolitical Dynamics

2. Global Politics

3. Trends and Events

All these are given, over which the country has no control but must
react to safeguard its national interests.

C/1. Security Apparatus: Regional Geopolitical Dynamics

Geopolitical configurations refer to the formal and informal alliances

made by the countries in a region among themselves or with those
outside the region to safeguard their respective national interests in
any given situation. Several triggers could change the geopolitical
situation even in the short term. Regional hegemonic states are
interested in safeguarding their national interests, which could give
rise to regional conflicts. Border disputes, one of the legacies of
colonialism, are another source of regional conflicts.
Lastly, all regional politics is not conflictual; there are marriages of
convenience among countries to safeguard their interests. These
regional alliances and antagonisms may also have the blessing of global
powers. However, these regional configurations are not cast in iron;
they can, and do change as per the requirements of the situation

C/2. Security Apparatus: Fallout of Global Politics

The global powers with a global agenda, are every country’s

neighbours. Accordingly, their mutual interaction in the form of
diplomatic support, economic assistance, and/or military aid would
affect the foreign policies of every country in the region.

Similarly, in a rapidly globalising world, a country cannot just ignore

the global citizenry’s sensitivities towards some issues such as human
rights, environmental degradation, child labour, etc. For example,
strict compliance with environmental laws is a demand of the general
public in Western countries; ignore them and be prepared for a social
boycott of your exports.

C/3. Security Apparatus: Trends and Events

Lastly, there are trends and events that may or may not have any input
from global politics but may affect every country, directly or indirectly.
The looming threat of Climate Change is one such trend that needs
global action, irrespective of the political affiliation of any country. The
same is the case concerning the coronavirus pandemic, which needs
global cooperation for its containment, and final elimination. Or take
the case of global terrorism, which needs regional and global efforts to
be contained.

Foreign Policy: Features,

Success Factors and
Challenges
Abstract

Some things are more difficult to define than they seem. Foreign
policy is one such concept that every person understands but will be
at a loss to define formally. Even those who are considered experts in
international relations differ from one another in their ability to
define foreign policy in definitive terms.

This article attempts to define this concept, which gives a sense of

direction to a state while dealing with its relations with foreign
entities to safeguard its national interests. It also explains the process
of foreign policy formulation, lists the factors contributing to its
success or failure, and finally identifies the challenges it is facing

Introduction

Some things are more difficult to define than they seem. Foreign policy
is one such concept that every person understands but will be at a loss
to define formally. Even those who are considered experts in
international relations differ from one another in their ability to define
foreign policy in definitive terms. According to Hartmann, foreign
policy “is a systematic statement of deliberately selected national
interests.” Schleicher defines it as the “actions (including words) of
government officials to influence human behaviour beyond the
jurisdiction of their state.”

In the words of Rodee, “Foreign policy involves the formulation and

implementation of a group of principles that shape the behaviour
pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to protect or
further its vital interests.” Model Ski defines foreign policy as “the
system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour
of other states and for adjusting their activities to the international
environment. “

We can reproduce dozens of definitions proposed by various writers.

However, for this book, I will prefer this definition by Padelford and
Lincoln

“Foreign policy is the key element in the process by which a state

translates its broadly conceived goals and interests into concrete
courses of action to attain those objectives and preserve its interests
within the limits of its strength and the realities of the external
environment.”

As per this definition, foreign policy is an indispensable tool of

statecraft, a rational procedure to achieve definite ends within
prevailing external conditions involving certain constraints, both
national and international. It, therefore, gives a sense of direction to a
state, suggests adequate means, and creates a sense of purpose as well
as the confidence to achieve that purpose.

Features of Foreign Policy

Whatever definition you like to use, certain features are common to all
foreign policies. Some of these are as follows:

1. Not a formal Document

No country issues a formal, documented version of its foreign policy,
only its principles. It issues various statements, carries out different
activities, and takes or refuses to take decisions on any matter
requiring attention. These statements, activities, and decisions are the
results of countless meetings among multiple shareholders and a lot of
paperwork. It is the job of analysts and academia to sift out patterns of
relations and behaviour from this and describe it as the foreign policy
of a country. This provides us clues to the formulation of the foreign
policy process in the country

2. State policy, rather than Government Policy

One of the distinguishing features of foreign policy is its relative

stability over a period transcending any regime change in the country.
And the reason for this relative stability is directly related to the
permanence of the objectives in the national interest of the country.
That’s why we can say that foreign policy is formulated by the state,
while other policies are made by the government in power

3. Obverse of Domestic Policy

As stated earlier, the government, to improve the quality of life of its

citizens, formulates an overarching national policy; foreign policy is
one component of that policy and tries to achieve the same goals and
objectives as set by the government in the national policy. Accordingly,
the success or failure of a country’s foreign policy is dependent upon
several factors and is the result of the joint efforts of those who
formulate the foreign policy and those who execute it, i.e., the foreign
office. By any stretch of the imagination, it cannot convert the domestic
failures of a country into foreign policy success.

4. Cross-cutting

Almost every domestic policy has one or more foreign policy

implications; similarly, every foreign policy is embedded in domestic
issues and interests. Thus, we can discern these foreign policy issues in
the overall development policy and strategy of the country, i.e. the
growth strategy for the country prepared by the Planning Commission
would rely on the inflow of foreign aid, foreign direct investment,
access to foreign markets, etc. On the other hand, deciding whether to
support Iran or the USA in their standoff will be taken keeping in view
the sectarian sensitivities of a sizeable group of people in the country.

5. Sanctity

Although it is not a piece of legislation approved by the parliament in

the form of an act of parliament, it has the sanctity of its own and can
be used as a reference for dispute resolution in a court of law. In a few
cases, some aspects of foreign policy, particularly those related to
economic diplomacy, which is, in essence, a value judgement of the
regime in power, could be converted into an act of parliament. For
example, to attract foreign direct investment, the cabinet may
recommend to the parliament of the country to formally convert these
measures into an act of parliament to create confidence among foreign
investors.

6. Different from Strategy

A foreign policy is distinct from a strategy in the sense that while the
policy is fairly general, indicating what is to be done and why, the
strategy outlines the exact measures to be taken for realizing the goals
and objectives set out by the policy. The foreign office is just the
marketing department of a country, although its inputs are extremely
invaluable for the legislative branch in this respect.

How Foreign Policy is Formulated

Unlike other domestic policies of individual ministries, the foreign

policy of a country is a collaborative effort of several institutions and
interest groups. Under certain conditions, these various forces come
together to support a united purpose in foreign affairs. At other times,
these disparate groups can have conflicting views about foreign policy
objectives. The foreign policy that eventually results is a product of
debate, political struggle, electoral politics, and lobbying by key
interest groups.

As stated earlier, no country issues a formal, documented version of its

foreign policy. It issues various statements and carries out different
activities. The statements issued, activities undertaken, and decisions
made provide clues to the formulation of the foreign policy process of a
country. As such, it is not a random act, rather, it is a deliberate action
taken by a competent authority and approved by the public
representatives, usually the minister in charge. However, keeping in
view its importance, it is the cabinet, headed by the prime minister of
the country, that takes foreign policy decisions.

As the foreign policy of every country is formulated by its ruling elite,

keeping in mind the challenges the country is facing and the
opportunities available in the prevailing environment, the formulation
of a foreign policy for a country is a dynamic process that reflects the
current world view of a nation’s policy-making elite. The worldview a
country’s policymakers hold is, in turn, shaped by a complex
interaction among various variables and constants. Fundamental
structural changes evolved over some time and altered the perceptions
of the policymakers according to their receptivity, maturity,
knowledge, and respective preferences. These altered perceptions
about the situation obtaining on the ground, result in making decisions
that in turn result in changing the ground realities, some expected,
some unintended.

Accordingly, the formulation of the foreign policy of a country is by and

large a political process carried out by the elected representatives of the
country. Representing the general will of the public, these
representatives ensure that any policy formulated by them should
reflect the sentiments of the majority of the citizens of the country. For
example, although there may be several economic and strategic
reasons for recognizing Israel, no one in the Pakistani parliament
would dare present a resolution for its recognition as it would go
against the general will of the public.

Any issue requiring action is first examined by the concerned ministry,

which solicits the opinions of other stakeholders. After examination, it
lists the options and recommends its preferred option with cogent
reasons to the cabinet through the foreign office for recording its
observations en route. Elected representatives discuss these options
and suggestions from the foreign office in select committee or cabinet
meetings. Once an option is approved, a statement is issued as the
response to that issue. Afterwards, it is the foreign office of the country
that strategizes its execution by employing various tools of foreign
policy, discussed in the next chapter.

Conditions for Successful Foreign Policy

There are no hard and fast rules to assess the success or failure of any
policy, simply because it is extremely difficult to define what is meant
by success. Sometimes apparent successes turn out to be dismal
failures when analyzed properly. The fall of Saddam Hussein was
touted as the success of American foreign policy but is now considered
an abject failure. Similarly, short-term foreign policy gains may
become long-term losses.

However, the litmus test of the success of any policy is the extent to
which it has been successful in the realization of the goals and
objectives determined under various components of the national
interest, at what cost, and in comparison, with what other policy
instruments? Failure to address each question may lead to serious
policy mistakes

Foreign policy is also subject to these rules and can be an invaluable

vehicle for the achievement of the national interest if, besides the
above-mentioned factors, there is a

1. Accurate Identification of the Challenges

There are different types of actors involved in the process of policy

formulation. Needless to reiterate, the capacity of these actors will go a
long way in determining the quality of policies made; if the
policymakers are unable to properly understand the situation and
define the challenges accurately, all their efforts to respond will fail

2. Internal Consistency

An actionable foreign policy document must ensure that it is an

internally consistent document that not only properly identifies the
challenges but also that the response is in harmony with the facts and
figures given, and accordingly, correct inferences have been drawn
from this evidence. An internally contradictory policy document or
incomplete policy has remote chances of successful implementation or
realization of intended objectives.

3. External Consistency
No policy is a stand-alone set of measures, but rather a cross-cutting
set of measures. Consequently, while preparing a foreign policy
response to any emerging situation, the cross-cutting nature of its
impact must be addressed. It should not only be in sync with the
overall aims and objectives of the state but should also try not to
conflict with other policies promulgated by the state to achieve its
objectives. It must, therefore, review other existing policies that affect
or will be affected by the proposed policy. In cases of inconsistency, the
draft policy formulators should revise their provisions as far as
possible or start a consultation with the stakeholders to resolve the
inconsistency.

4. Managerial capabilities of Managers

If foreign policy formulation is the prerogative and responsibility of the

elective members of parliament in a country, its implementation rests
with another actor, i.e., the foreign office, which devises strategies to
implement the directives given in the policy document. In the ultimate
analysis, it is the quality of the execution of a policy that determines its
success or failure. If a country’s foreign office is efficient, effective, and
responsible, it will be reflected in the quality of the implementation of
its policies. And that depends upon the availability of enough human
and financial resources, the quality of those managing the policy
execution, and their knowledge, wisdom, and foresight.

5. Political/executive Commitment
The success or failure of any policy formulated depends a lot on the
level and intensity of commitment of the elected representatives and
the amount of consensus developed among the stakeholders for its
execution. The same is true in respect of foreign policy. If there is a
strong political/executive commitment at the highest level in the
country, foreign policy would be an effective instrument for the
realization of its goals, even if there is any deficiency in the policy
design or strategy chosen.

6. Pragmatic

Last but not least is the level of pragmatism exhibited while

formulating and implementing foreign policy. No country can play a
larger-than-life role consistently if it does not have the necessary
wherewithal to do so. It has to be tailored to the kind of environment
prevailing, globally, or domestically. Sometimes the best strategies
executed by the most capable people can fail if the environment is not
conducive to their success.

Challenges for Foreign Policy

International relations do not take place in a vacuum, nor do the

formulation and implementation of the foreign policy of a country.
They take place in a relatively open space with a host of issues seeking
the attention of the policymakers, who have to interact with multiple
actors, both state and non-state. Consequently, there are many unique
challenges a country faces while conducting its foreign policy. Some of
these are as follows.

1. Increasing Complexity

Not only has the number of actors taking part in international relations
increased, but the issues and challenges they face are also becoming
more complex and transcending borders. There are no longer simply
friendly states and enemy states. Problems around the world that
might affect any country, such as terrorism, environmental
degradation, climate change, drug trafficking, and money laundering,
originate with groups and issues that are not country-specific

2. Global Governance Vacuum

Always the case, but the increasing complexity described above makes
crises of enforcement more acute. If one nation negotiates in bad faith
or lies to another, there is no central world-level government authority
to sanction that country. This makes diplomacy and international
coordination an ongoing bargain as issues evolve and governmental
leaders and nations change. Foreign relations are certainly made
smoother by the existence of cross-national voluntary associations like
the United Nations. However, these associations do not have strict
enforcement authority over specific nations, unless a group of member
nations takes action in some manner (which is ultimately voluntary).

3. Diminishing role of Diplomats

The role of diplomats as a major channel of diplomatic activities has
been undergoing a fundamental change for several reasons. While
there is a greater reliance on the political leadership of summit
diplomacy to resolve international issues, the increasing complexity of
global issues necessitates ordinary civil servants, belonging to
specialized ministries (of commerce, agriculture, information
technology, etc.) to attend the meetings for the resolution of such
issues.

Globalization is also reducing the importance of diplomats, as the

penetration of global entities (i.e., UNO, World Bank, WTO, etc ) in
domestic policy formulation and implementation is bypassing the
foreign office. There is increased outreach of local institutions, entities,
and interests to global centres of influence, forcing governments to
resolve domestic issues. Consequently, diplomacy in the not-so-distant
future will gravitate towards more of a consultation process among the
direct stakeholders rather than that among the specialist diplomats,
making the foreign office redundant in the long run.

4. Increasing Role of Non-State Actors

There are no longer simply friendly states and enemy states. Non-state
actors have forced a change in the concepts of sovereignty and
nationalism. They have emerged as powerful non-political,
commercial, economic, cultural, or trading actors in the international
environment. They not only help to build and broaden the foreign
policy agendas of national decision-makers but also pursue their
interests largely outside the direct control of nation-states.
Multinational corporations have come to be mostly the instruments of
neo-colonialism, Economic relations have assumed more importance
in international relations. Most of these non-state actors have emerged
and are working because of the acceptance of their utility by nation-
states.

5. Rise of Supra-state Actors

Intergovernmental organisations, and international organisations like

the United Nations and a host of other international agencies, have
existed following the wishes of nation-states. These have contributed to
the growth of internationalism and the dilution of nationalism in
favour of internationalism. These have also been instrumental in the
emergence of several strong peaceful, developmental, and ecological
movements. In the study of international relations, these have given
rise to the transnational perspective.

Nation-state System:
Evolution and Challenges
Abstract

The Peace of Westphalia (1648) not only created the modern nation-
state system in Europe but also stipulated the basic rules of statecraft.
Despite all the criticisms about its Western origins, the concept of
state and nation took firm roots in most parts of the world, thanks to
colonialism. However, it is now facing an existential challenge from
four different sources.

This article discusses these four sources: namely globalisation,

decentralisation, sub-nationalism, and regional groupings. It then
discusses the likely future global governance structure.

Introduction

The concept of a nation-state is notoriously difficult to define.

According to the Declarative Theory of Statehood, a nation-state is a
type of state that conjoins the political entity of a state to the cultural
entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to
rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.

A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, while a nation is

a cultural and ethnic one. The term “nation-state” implies that the two
coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific
cultural group associated with it. The concept of a nation-state can be
compared with that of the multinational state, city-state, empire,
confederation, and other state formations with which it may overlap.
The key distinction is the identification of people with a political
system in the nation-state.

Origins of the Nation-State

The origins and early history of nation-states are disputed. Two major
theoretical questions have been debated.

· First, “Which came first, the nation or the nation-state?”

· Second, “Is the nation-state a modern or an ancient idea?”

Some scholars have advanced the hypothesis that the nation-state was
an inadvertent by-product of 15th-century intellectual discoveries in
political economy, capitalism, mercantilism, political geography, and
geography combined with cartography and advances in map-making
technologies.

For others, the nation existed first, then nationalist movements arose
for sovereignty, and the nation-state was created to meet that demand.
Some “modernization theories” of nationalism see it as a product of
government policies to unify and modernize an already existing state.
Most theories see the nation-state as a modern European
phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as state-mandated
education, mass literacy, and mass media (including print). However,
others look for the roots of nation-states in ancient times.

Most commonly, the idea of a nation-state was and is associated with

the rise of the modern system of states, often called the “Westphalian
system” after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The balance of power
that characterized that system depended on its effectiveness in
establishing clearly defined, centrally controlled, independent entities,
whether empires or nation-states, that recognized each other’s
sovereignty and territory.

Elements of Nation-state

Whether it was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that created the modern
nation-state system or it just endorsed a trend already in vogue, it was
the European colonial powers who introduced it all over the world. The
nation-state got identified with its four essential elements: Territorial
integrity, Sovereignty, Nationalism, and Equality.

1. Territorial Integrity: Territorial integrity conceptualized

the nation-state as a geographical entity whereby the
protection of the people living within its boundaries became
its chief responsibility.
2. Sovereignty: At the same time, sovereignty, internal and
external, came to be regarded as the hallmark of the nation-
state. Internally, the state had the right to order the behaviour
of all its citizens, and externally, sovereignty implied the right
of the state to choose any element to protect its national
interest.
3. Nationalism: Thirdly, the rise of the nation-state was
accompanied by the rise of nationalism, which advocates the
identification of the individual with the state in return for
obedience to its laws.
 4. Equality: Finally, international law recognized all states as
equal sovereign entities with equal legal status and rights.

The nation-states with all four characteristics became key actors in

international relations. Despite all the criticisms about its Western
origins, the concept of state and nation has taken firm roots in most
parts of the world—not without conflicts and bloodshed. Similarly, it
has withstood the challenges posed by greater regionalisation and even
the rapidly globalising world. Not only the nation-state as an identity of
its own still survive but will also stay with us for the foreseeable future

The Peace of Westphalia not only created the institution of the nation-
state but also stipulated the basic rules of statecraft, namely the rule of
law, respect for human rights, and democratic governance. These are
now universal standards acknowledged in most of the constitutions;
the fact that they may be misapplied in practice or under threat in
many countries does not change the fact that they remain valid and
relevant standards.

The Peace of Westphalia also separated the state from religion in

statecraft and made religion the private affair of the people. Secularism
is now the cornerstone of modern statecraft

Challenges to a Modern Nation-state

The Peace of Westphalia created the modern nation-state system in

Europe, and the colonial powers introduced it all over the world.
Despite all the criticisms about its Western origins, the concept of state
and nation took firm roots in most parts of the world—not without
conflicts and bloodshed. However, it is now facing several challenges
emanating from the following seven different sources.

A. Challenges of State Building

B. Challenge of Nation-Building

Challenges of Democratic Development

D. Challenges of Economic Growth

E. Challenge of Gradual Loss of Sovereignty

F. Challenges of Globalisation

G. Challenges of Localisation

H. Challenge of Sub-nationalism and Self-determination

I. Challenges of Regional Groupings

A. Challenges of State Building

State building refers to the creation of new institutions such as

parliament, judiciary, armed forces, bureaucracy, law enforcement
agencies, service departments, etc., and their strengthening if they are
already in existence.

State building and institutional strengthening are not much of a

challenge for developed countries, but almost all post-colonial states,
particularly those in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, have been facing
them since they got independence from their erstwhile colonial
masters.

While ex-colonies of the British Empire were lucky to some extent that
they inherited some well-functioning institutions, those who were
under the possession of other colonial powers had to start their state-
building from a rudimentary stage. Although they have made much
progress, they are still suffering from this capacity deficit in their
institutions; their institutions are not delivering effectively, efficiently,
and equitably. It has led to the loss of writ of the state in some
countries, while in others it results in frequent violent uprisings

B. Challenge of Nation-Building

The second challenge almost all post-colonial states are facing is the
unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically
stable and viable in the long run.

This challenge is again an offshoot of their colonial past; when

departing, colonial powers created states by drawing arbitrary borders
within which they clubbed different nationalities. Thus, most post-
colonial states are multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, and multi-cultural
entities

Thus, the biggest challenge for these nation-states is how to build a

nation with a vision of common destiny out of a multitude of culturally
distinct nationalities with years of rich heritage, languages, and culture
into a nation that is at peace within and at peace without.

Nation-building is a long, painful process that needs sagacious

leadership to steer it successfully. Otherwise, any nation-state is prone
to destabilization, and the rise of sub-nationalistic centrifugal forces,
leading to even disintegration. Think pre-1971 Pakistan.

C. Challenges of Democratic Development

The third challenge modern nation-states face relates to democratic

development and people's empowerment while maintaining their
territorial integrity. Think of the Soviet Union. It broke into pieces as it
could not respond properly to this challenge

Thus, a modern nation-state has to ensure that, while increasing the

participation of people in policymaking and implementation at all
levels of governance by improving democratic structures, processes,
and political culture, it does not break into pieces itself. Think India!

D. Challenges of Economic Growth

The fourth challenge a modern nation-state faces is how to accelerate
the rate of growth of its economy to raise the standard of living of its
citizens over a long period with all attendant structural changes,
besides ensuring its sustainability.

Like the above-mentioned challenges, this also has its roots in the
colonial past of modern nation-states. Colonialism, despite all the
claims of its beneficial spin-offs, was exploitative; it left its colonies in
far poorer states than they were when they were colonized.

Thus, to survive as a viable entity, every modern nation-state is striving

hard to not only grow rapidly but also ensure that the fruits of its
economic growth are shared equitably by all sections of society and all
regions of the nation-state.

E. Gradual Erosion of Sovereignty

Two cardinal principles agreed upon during the Peace of Westphalia

were the territorial integrity of a modern nation-state and its
sovereignty, internal as well as external. While the first is still intact,
the second is under attack by 3 forces.

1. Global Power Politics: While small, poor, and weak countries

have always been prone to bend under pressure from big-power
countries, modern nation-states are particularly vulnerable to global
power politics due to the inherent logic of the Cold War. Consequently,
these countries must compromise on their sovereignty as the rivalry
between the big powers becomes intense. And they may let go of their
sovereignty by design for some monetary aid (Pakistan in the 1950s) or
they must do it under pressure (Pakistan during War on Terror)

2. Supra-state Actors.: All modern nation-states, old or post-

colonial, big or small, are gradually surrendering their sovereignty to
supra-state actors like the UNO, WB, IMF, and WTO. Look how UNO
forced the big powers to agree on its recommendations during COP27!
While the big countries are less prone to this erosion of their
sovereignty, poor nation-states have no choice. They are helplessly
witnessing their power to formulate policies being taken over by these
world institutions. Think Pakistan vs IMF.

3. Global NGOs: While the political sovereignty of a modern nation-

state is under threat by supra-state actors and their economic
sovereignty is threatened by MNCs, even global NGOs are encroaching
upon their right to formulate social development policies. These global
NGOs are now so powerful that they can dictate to poor nation-states
on any issue they like, be it anti-corruption legislation or women's
empowerment policies. You just name any social action policy, and you
will see the footprints of one or two global NGOs.

F. Challenges of Globalisation

Nothing has challenged the core foundations of the nation-state other

than the emergence of globalization which has superseded the
governmental ability of the nation-state in many ways. The integration
of commerce, finance, trade, and technology is gradually making the
nation-state almost redundant. No longer is the nation-state the
conduit by which MNCs, Diplomats, NGOs, and Supranational
organizations must filter through to operate in and around its
geographical sphere.

As an inevitable offshoot of rapid globalization, modern nation-states

are losing their right to formulate economic policies as per their
respective national interests. Instead, they have to take into account
the interests of global MNCs to ensure FDI and access to markets.
Globalization has completely altered the way nations govern,
communicate, negotiate, and interact with each other.

Globalization has improved and expanded global commerce, brought

more Foreign Direct Investment to developing countries, built
infrastructure, advanced literacy, inspired democratic movements via
social networks, and created emerging middle classes all over the world
without much assistance from the nation-state. At the same time,
globalization has been disrupting the social and moral fabric of a
nation-state, which in turn causes unrest, financial meltdown, poverty,
hunger, dissension, and interstate wars between ethnic, tribal, and
religious groups. The nation-state seems helpless due to the inability of
the current structure to effectively harness its destructive elements.

G. Challenges of Localisation
While the nation-state is facing the above-mentioned challenges from
the outside, it is also under attack from the inside; rising demand for
greater decentralisation by its federating units and even by the mega-
cities under its jurisdiction.

After the 19th-century triumph of the nation-state in Europe, regional

identity was usually subordinate to national identity. No more. It is
now common for provinces, states, and cities to deal directly with other
nation-states, corporations, and other big cities

Consequently, this direct dealing by the big cities and provinces with
other supra-state/non-state actors, or even other nation-states,
bypassing the central government, is another big challenge for the
nation-state.

H. Challenges of Sub-Nationalism and Self-determination

Most modern nation-states are artificial creations, the results of the

dissolution of empires or the end of colonialism. The most obvious
impact of the nation-state is the creation of a uniform national culture
through state policy. The model of the nation-state implies that its
population constitutes a nation, united by common descent, a common
language, and many forms of shared culture. When implied unity was
absent, the nation-state often tried to create it. The creation of national
systems of compulsory primary education is usually linked with the
popularization of nationalist narratives.
However, that is being challenged. Being multi-ethnic entities, nation-
states are under pressure from emerging sub-nationalism in their areas
of jurisdiction. With the gradual withdrawal of religion as a source of
cohesion in a society, there is emerging a wide legitimacy gap for
keeping the people together; and creating a solid foundation of unity
that religion used to do in the old times.

I. Challenges of Regional Groupings

Increased business activities due to expansion in areas and peaceful

conditions within the jurisdiction of a nation-state, led to the
emergence of the capitalist-industrialist class as an extremely powerful
stakeholder.

This capitalist-industrialist class needs bigger areas of operation,

which are only possible within bigger units of administration. Hence
the formation of the European Union, which has greatly dented the
concept of the nation-state as was envisaged by the Peace of
Westphalia

Thus, both, capitalism as the dominant mode of production at the

global level and outsourcing as a universally accepted form of business
organisation, is helping the formation of regional trading blocks,
challenging nation-states everywhere

What is the future of the Nation-state?

No doubt the institution of the nation-state, despite being a Western
European construct, imposed on their colonies, has weathered many
storms and survived. However, keeping in view the inexorable march
of history, it is but one more stage towards a world government.

It all started with the establishment of tribal settlements when human

beings came out of cave dwellings and started living together in the
form of tribal settlements. There was peace within the limits of these
respective settlements, but every tribal settlement was invariably at
war with neighbouring units for control of resources. There was
practically no state apparatus and minimal trade activity, mostly
through barter.

Over centuries, these tribal settlements started merging due to

population pressures and became villages accommodating multiple
tribes within their respective jurisdictions. Now there was not only a
rudimentary state but also a specialized class structure, including a
specialist trading class.

Although there was peace within these villages, these multi-tribe

villages were constantly fighting with one another for the same reason-
control of resources. It adversely affected the business of the newly
emerging commercial classes, resulting in fewer resources for the state
through taxes

Hence, these villages first became towns and then converted into city-
states. An increased area of operation, more population, and greater
specialization resulted in improved trade and commerce, resulting in
peace treaties among these city-states for the protection of trade.

This immensely benefitted the commercial classes, who started gaining

greater influence in statecraft. Consequently, their desire to increase
the area of their commercial activities was one of the main reasons, not
the only one, of course—for the Peace of Westphalia and the emergence
of the nation-states.

Increased business activities due to expansion in areas and peaceful

conditions within the jurisdiction of a nation-state, led to the
emergence of the capitalist-industrialist class, which wanted colonies
to obtain resources as well as markets for selling their products. It led
to the scramble for colonies, which inevitably resulted in greater
warfare.

The commercial classes, who had now become extremely powerful

stakeholders, started clamouring for peace, which was only possible
within bigger units of administration. Hence the formation of the
European Union

Emboldened by the success of this administrative re-engineering, other

nation-states started experimenting with similar models, which are
continuing. These regional groupings are just another milestone in our
slow but steady journey towards the formation of a world government
—the endpoint of the march of history.
Within the next two centuries, all the current state borders will be
abolished, and nation-states will be replaced by continent-sized units
of governance, with maximum devolution and decentralization for the
provision of basic services to the people.

While UNO will act as the world Parliament to formulate global

policies, its constituent units such as UNICEF, WHO, etc will act like
global ministries with the World Bank as the central bank English will
be recognised as the universal language with input from different
languages towards its vocabulary.

7 FEATURES OF NEW
WORLD ORDER
What is World Order?

World order refers to the arrangement of power & authority that

provides the framework for the conduct of diplomacy and world
politics on a global scale. It encompasses the norms, rules, institutions,
and power dynamics that shape the behaviour and interactions of
countries and other entities on the world stage.

World order can be thought of as a framework for managing the global

commons, such as the environment, trade, security, and human rights.
It reflects the balance of power and interests among different actors
and is constantly evolving through negotiations, cooperation, and
conflicts.

World Orders in Modern History

Although Henry Kissenger maintains that “No truly ‘global’ world

order’ has ever existed and what passes for order in our time was
devised in Western Europe nearly four centuries ago, at a peace
conference in the German region of Westphalia, conducted without
the involvement or even the awareness of most other continents or
civilizations”, we can discern four different types of world orders in the
last five hundred years. These are

1. Westphalian World Order

2. Inter-World Wars Global order

3. Post WW-2 World Order

4. Post-Cold War World Order

A bit of detail of these orders will be in order.

A. Westphalian World Order

It emerged in the 17th century after the conclusion of the Westphalian

Peace Treaty in 1648 and remained in force till the breakout of World
War 1 in 1914. Named after the city of Westphalia in Germany where
the peace negotiations took place, some of the main features of the
Westphalian world order included:

1. Sovereignty: The Westphalian system is based on the

concept of state sovereignty, which means that each state has
the right to govern its own affairs without interference from
other states.
2. Territorial integrity: The principle of territorial integrity
was closely tied to state sovereignty, and it meant that each
state had a right to control its own territory and borders.
3. Non-interference: In order to maintain sovereignty and
territorial integrity, the Westphalian system also emphasized
the importance of non-interference in the internal affairs of
other states.
4. Balance of power: The Westphalian system also promoted
a balance of power among states, which meant that no one
state should be too powerful or dominant in the international
system.
5. Diplomacy: Diplomacy was the primary means of resolving
conflicts and maintaining stability in the Westphalian system.
This included negotiations, treaties, and other forms of
peaceful communication between states.
6. International law: The Westphalian system was based on
the idea that states should adhere to international law and
 norms, which helps to promote cooperation and reduce
conflict.

Overall, the Westphalian world order was characterized by a system of

sovereign states that interacted with each other through diplomatic
channels, and where the international system was based on a balance
of power and adherence to international law. However, despite its lofty
ideals, it was Eurocentric, Monarchic, and Hierarchic. In other words,
a few European monarchies having colonies all over the world would
steer global affairs through the barrel of the gun; there was no global
forum to discuss issues.

B. Inter-World Wars Global Order

Established by the victors in World War 1 through the Treaty of

Versailles, the world order that existed between the two world wars
(1918–1939) is commonly known as the Interwar or Inter-World Wars
Global Order. This period was characterized by a significant shift in the
balance of power in the international system following the end of
World War I and the emergence of new powers such as the United
States and the Soviet Union. Some of the main features of this world
order include:

1. The League of Nations: The League of Nations was created

in 1919 as a means of promoting international cooperation
and preventing future wars. However, it faced significant
 challenges due to the lack of support from some major
powers, such as the United States, and its inability to
effectively address conflicts such as the Manchurian and
Abyssinian crises.
2. Rise of totalitarianism: The Interwar period saw the rise
of totalitarian regimes in Europe, including Nazi Germany
and Fascist Italy, which challenged the existing international
order and threatened the stability of the region.
3. Economic nationalism: Economic nationalism emerged as
a major feature of the Interwar period, with many countries
adopting protectionist policies and engaging in competitive
currency devaluations, which contributed to the onset of the
Great Depression.
4. Disarmament efforts: Following the devastation of World
War I, many countries sought to reduce the size and
capabilities of their militaries through disarmament treaties.
However, these efforts were largely unsuccessful due to a lack
of cooperation and trust among the major powers.
5. Colonialism: The Interwar period was also marked by
continued colonialism and imperialism, with European
powers maintaining control over much of Africa and Asia.

Overall, the Interwar period was characterized by a lack of cooperation

and trust among major powers, the rise of totalitarian regimes,
economic instability, and ongoing colonialism. It was a short-lived one
that tragically failed. Instead, the world got European fascism, U.S.
isolationism, a global economic crisis, and millions of dead from the
Holocaust and World War

C. Post WW-2 World Order

The post-World War II world order was established in the aftermath of

World War II and remained in place until the end of the Cold War in
1991. This period was marked by a number of key features, including:

1. Bipolarity: The world order was dominated by two

superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, which
were engaged in a global struggle for power and influence.
2. Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union engaged
in a protracted global conflict known as the Cold War, which
was marked by intense ideological and military competition.
3. Decolonization: The post-World War II period saw the
decolonization of many countries in Asia and Africa, which led
to the emergence of a new wave of independent states.
4. International institutions: The post-World War II period
saw the establishment of a number of international
institutions, including the United Nations, the International
Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, which were designed to
promote peace, stability, and economic development.
5. Nuclear deterrence: The world order was characterized by
the development of nuclear weapons, which created a
 dangerous and unstable balance of power between the United
States and the Soviet Union.
6. Regional conflicts: The post-World War II period was
marked by a number of regional conflicts, including the
Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict,
which were often proxy wars between the United States and
the Soviet Union.
7. Economic growth: The post-World War II period was
marked by a period of economic growth and prosperity,
particularly in the United States and Europe, which was
driven by the rebuilding efforts after the war and the growth
of international trade.

Overall, the post-World War II world order was characterized by a

bipolar system, with the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in
a global struggle for power and influence and a number of regional
conflicts and challenges. However, the period was also marked by
efforts to promote peace, stability, and economic development through
the establishment of international institutions and cooperation

D. Post-Cold War World Order

The post-Cold War world order refers to the period of international

relations that emerged after the end of the Cold War in 1991. This
period was marked by significant changes in the international system,
including the decline of bipolarity and the emergence of new global
challenges. Some of the main features of this world order include:
1. Unipolarity: From the demise of the USSR in 1991 till the
2010s, world affairs were more or less a one-man show. The
United States emerged as the sole superpower in the world,
with no other major rival to its military and economic power.
2. Globalization: The post-Cold War period was marked by
increased economic globalization and interconnectedness,
with the expansion of international trade and the growth of
global supply chains.
3. Humanitarian interventions: The 1990s saw a rise in the
number of humanitarian interventions, with the United
Nations and NATO engaging in military actions in Somalia,
Bosnia, and Kosovo.
4. Terrorism: The post-Cold War period saw the rise of non-
state actors, including terrorist organizations, that posed new
security challenges to the international system.
5. Regional Conflicts: While the post-Cold War era saw a
decline in major inter-state conflicts, there was an increase in
regional conflicts, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.
6. Multilateralism: With the end of the Cold War,
multilateralism and international cooperation became
increasingly important in addressing global challenges, such
as climate change and nuclear proliferation. The United
Nations, World Trade Organization, and other international
institutions gained greater prominence and influence in the
post-Cold War era, as countries sought to address global
challenges through collective action.
 7. Regional integration: The post-Cold War period saw the
growth of regional integration, including the establishment of
the European Union, ASEAN, and the African Union.
8. Democratization: The collapse of authoritarian regimes in
Eastern Europe and elsewhere led to a wave of
democratization in many parts of the world.

Overall, the post-Cold War world order was characterized by a shift in

the balance of power, increased globalization, the emergence of new
global challenges, and a growing emphasis on multilateralism and
international cooperation.

What is happening now?

The present world order is marked by a complex and dynamic global

system, characterized by a range of emerging and ongoing challenges.
While it is difficult to fully capture the features of the present world
order, some of the main characteristics include:

1. Globalization: Globalisation continues to shape the world

order, with increasing interconnectedness through trade,
investment, and information flows, although it is also facing
resistance in some parts of the world.
2. Climate change: Climate change is one of the most pressing
global challenges of the present era, with a growing consensus
 on the need for coordinated international action to mitigate
its effects.
3. Pandemics: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the
vulnerability of the global system to pandemics and the
importance of global cooperation in addressing them.
4. Terrorism and extremism: Terrorism and extremist
ideologies continue to pose a significant threat to global
security, with ongoing conflicts in regions such as the Middle
East, and new challenges such as cyberterrorism and
disinformation campaigns.
5. Rise of populism and nationalism: Populist and
nationalist movements have emerged in many parts of the
world, challenging established democratic norms and
institutions.
6. Technological advances: Rapid technological advances,
particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence and
automation, are transforming the global economy and society,
with potential benefits and risks for the world order.
7. Towards Multipolarity: The most dominant feature of the
present world order is its transformation towards a more
multipolar system, challenging the dominance of the United
States as it has not been able to provide the moral leadership
that was expected from a superpower. Jeoffrey D. Sachs has
rightly stated that the USA has failed to appropriately respond
to daunting challenges to its global dominance such as ‘facing
China’s rise, India’s dynamism, Africa’s soaring populations
and economic stirrings, Russia’s refusal to bend to its will,
 control events in the Middle East, and Latin America’s
determination to be free of its de facto hegemony.
Consequently, the world is slowly but surely entering a new
World Order

Likely Shape of Emerging World Order

While there are many uncertainties about the future, it is likely that the
world order will continue to evolve in response to these challenges. Its
7 defining features will be as follows.

1. Multipolarity

Unlike the previous world order, it will be a multi-polar world order in

which this century’s two military, technological, and economic
superpowers China and the USA will play a dominant role assisted by
Russia, India, European Union, and Japan. Although the world
sleepwalked into the Cold War-2 after the publication of the Neo-con
Agenda and the announcement of the Pivot towards Asia strategy in
the 2010s, the Ukraine war became the catalyst for this emerging world
order consisting of three poles. It led to unifying the US and the EU
through the expansion of NATO while promoting closer Sino-Russian
relations. At the same time, it accelerated the emergence of the third
block of non-aligned countries when only five countries opposed the
UN censure of Russia with fifty-one abstentions.

2. Clash of Ideas, not Ideologies

While there will be a constant tussle between the state-dominated
“Beijing Consensus” and the market-dominated “Washington
Consensus”, there will not be any clash of ideologies(capitalism vs
Communism) that dominated the post-WW2 world order

Coined in 1989 by Williamson, Washington Consensus refers to a set of

ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the
“standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing
countries i,e liberalization, privatization etc

Coined in 2004 by Joshua Cooper Ramo, the Beijing Consensus refers

to policies pursuing “equitable, peaceful high-quality growth”, “defence
of national borders and interests”, and “stable, if repressive, politics
and high-speed economic growth”.

3. UN Rules-based

While the present world order is based on rules framed by the West
such as West-style liberal democracy, a market economy, and Human
Rights, with the right to intervene where these rules are violated, New
World Order espoused by China is based on the UN
Charter/Panchsheel

Panchsheel is the name of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,

first mentioned in Sino-Indian Agreement, in 1954. They are mutual
respect for territorial integrity & sovereignty, mutual non-aggression,
mutual non-interference in internal affairs, equality, and mutual co-
operation

4. Constants and Variables

While the historical drivers of global rivalry namely the race for
resources and desire for leadership would remain, these will be
restrained by the need for greater cooperation on issues dealing with
humanity such as climate change, pandemics etc: It will be more of
hearts and mind strategy rather than military might only in which the
Soft power of the contending countries will play a major role

5. Economic Might dominate

While previous World Orders were about military might, the emerging
one is more to do with economic power. Without neglecting military
power, emerging powers are investing heavily in competing with the
West on the technological and scientific frontiers. Unlike the Soviet
Union during the Cold War, however, China is not committing the
mistake of focusing solely on its military power.

It has pragmatically embraced integration into US- and Western-

dominated world markets but investing heavily in competing with the
West on the technological and scientific frontiers. The Chinese
certainly have not held back on military investment, but they have not
allowed spending on defense and security to crowd out everything else.
6. Roads not Bases

While the previous world order sought to gain/increase respective

spheres of influence through military alliances and establishing bases,
the new world order is about building infrastructural projects and
winning the hearts of people rather than heads of states

7. End of History, not Clash of Civilisations

Finally, a new world civilization emerging in the wake of the new world
order will be the triumph of Francis Fukuyama’s ideas presented in his
thesis(End of History) over those presented by Huntington in his Clash
of Civilisations. While there would be multi-dimensional inputs from
the Chinese, Indian, African, and other cultures, the foundations of the
world civilization our coming generations would inherit, would be
predominantly Western philosophy and technology

Conclusion

What is the way forward to successfully steer in the emerging new

world order? The best answer I could give is the advice tendered by the
senior Fellow of Brooking Institute is as follows

“The only sane way forward for the US is vigorous global cooperation
to realize the potential of twenty-first-century science and technology
to slash poverty, disease, and environmental threats. The rise of
regional powers is not a threat to the US, but an opportunity for a new
era of prosperity and constructive problem-solving. The way to manage
the global agenda in the multivalent world order is to

accept complexities, contradictions, and contrariness as realities;

delink issues from one another to prevent singular differences from

overwhelming other functional relations;

decentralize global negotiating forums from one another;

devise diverse ways to work on issues that are distinctly different;

encourage varying clusters of country officials to lead on different

issues;

nurture plurilateral leadership groups by rotating their composition

from issue to issue;

embrace variety;

avoid blocs;

invite innovation;

focus on substance; and

dial back on polemics.”

Political Development &
Modernisation

Introduction

Political development and political modernisation are one of the most

important concepts in political science with a lot of controversy about
their definitions and contents. I will try to explain them but expect
some headaches.

What is Political Development?

I will define it as the process whereby a political system increases its
capacity and capability to successfully respond to the challenges it is
facing by improving its structures, processes, and culture.

Political structures refer to the institutions created, and the legal-

regulatory framework formulated for their internal functioning and
also to interact with other institutions for the smooth running of the
political system.

Examples of these political structures are the constitution and the

various enactments passed under it, the office of the president, two
houses of the parliament and its standing committees, the election
commission, election tribunals etc.

Political processes refer to the activities carried out by political

structures for carrying out their constitutionally mandated functions
i.e., voter registration, constituency delimitations, holding of fair and
free elections, policy formulation, implementation, etc.

Lucian Pye defines political culture as the set of attitudes, beliefs, and
sentiments, which give order and meaning to a political process and
provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behaviour in
the political system. How political actors think and behave-simple

What are the challenges for which the political system needs to develop
its capacity and capability to respond successfully?
Different writers have identified many. I will first list the four given by
Almond and Powell who contributed a lot to this debate. Be patient.
Drink tea.

1. Challenge of State Building

State building means creating new institutions or strengthening the old

ones to meet the challenges coming from within the political system,
from other systems(economic, society)or from the international
environment

Thus regime change with social welfare agenda will create new
institutions to implement its manifesto while the one with religious
agenda will create other institutions or change processes. An attack
from outside will need different institutions, and a disaster will require

2. Challenge of Nation Building

Most states, particularly post-colonial ones are multi-ethnic entities;

nation-building refers to gelling these diverse groups of people having
tribal, ethnic, religious, & regional loyalties into a nation with a
common vision and single identity

3. Challenge of Participation
People empowerment; how to cope with increasing public demand for
the inclusion decision-making process. Generally put forward through
such political structures as political parties, and pressure groups, it
forces the ruling elite to be responsive

4. Challenge of Distribution

Equity issue; increased political participation leads to the demand that

the benefits & national income should be distributed equitably among
all sections of society, irrespective of caste, colour, sex and creed. Equal
opportunities/Merit principle

Lucian w. Pye has outlined the different crises that the process of
political development is expected to overcome. These crises are

1. Identity crises
2. Legitimacy crises
3. Penetration crises
4. Participation crises
5. Integration crises
6. Distribution crises.

You must have noticed that the challenges or crises Lucian Pye has
listed are almost the same with different names but you must mention
them in your answer to show you have thoroughly studied this topic.
Kindly read pages 26–28 of this article by
him https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABT526.pdf…

So what happens when the political system undergoes development?

Leonard Binder who defines political development as “changes in the
type and style of politics”, attributes the following five characteristics to
political development.

1. Change of Identity: People start shifting their loyalties

from smaller entities to bigger ones, of course gradually. For
example, some change from tribal to provincial and then to
national. Some change from religious to national and son.
Remember nation-building?
2. Change in Legitimacy: The source of legitimacy for the
state shifts from transcendental to immanent sources. (What
he is saying in simple terms is that the state derives its
legitimacy from the constitution instead of saying that it is its
divine right. Objectives Resolution?
3. Change in Political Participation: Patterns of political
participation shift from elite to mass and from family to
group. In other words, there is mass participation in politics,
people voting on their own instead of the wishes of their
baradari or bigwigs,
4. Change of Distribution from status and privilege to
achievement. People start recognising achievement as the
 criteria for giving respect to someone in politics instead of
mere family background, wealth, status etc.
5. Change in the degree of administrative and legal
penetration: It means with political development state
becomes strong enough to penetrate into social structure and
out of the remote regions of the country. Its regulatory powers
become deep and wide

Now a bit of difficulty

The definition of political development I gave in the beginning will not

impress the examiner if you do not write this definition by Almond and
Powell ” the increased differentiation and specialisation of political
structures and the increased secularisation of political culture”

And these two also

Samuel P. Huntington-” the process by which organisations and

procedures acquire values and stability”. Alfred Diamont, “process
which aims at a particular condition, but creates an institutional
framework for solving an ever-widening range of social problems”

What are Structural Differentiation and Specialization?

By these 2 interrelated terms, Almond & Powell mean that political

development occurs when the structures in the system start shedding
their extra load, concentrating on their core functions, and specializing
in it.

Thus during political development, families, instead of doing

everything for their children ranging from rearing them, educating
them, healthcare etc, concentrate only on the first and leave schools to
educate them, hospitals for their healthcare, firms for their
employment etc

What is Political Secularisation?

Simply put, political secularisation is divorcing the state from religion.

Thus political development in essence is these two things mentioned by
Almond and Powell in their definition- institutions become specialised
& state becomes secular.

So what happens when there is Political Development?

According to Almond and Powell, political development affects a

political system’s FIVE capabilities meaning its ability and the extent to
which the system can cope with its challenges successfully. These are

1. The Extractive Capability

How far the political system is now capable of drawing material and
human resources from the domestic and international environment?
Can it levy and collect taxes more efficiently? Can it get loans from
abroad easily and cheaply?

2. The Regulative Capability

How far the political system is now capable to enforce its laws, making
people obey them, and controlling public behaviour with or without
using its legitimate coercive powers? Can it catch big fish?

3. The Distributive Capability

How far the political system is capable to allocate goods, services,

honours, statuses and opportunities to individuals and groups
equitably, without any fear or favour? Can it prevent the power to
capture the policy formulation?

4. The Symbolic Capability

How far is the political system now capable to use its value system(soft
power) effectively during crises and emergency situations. Remember
how in 1965, Ayub Khan mobilized the nation and armed forces
through speeches and statements.

5. The Responsive Capability

How far is the political system now capable of successfully responding
to internal or external pressures and demands. Disaster management?
external aggression? internal sub-version? agitations?

Factors affecting speed and scope of Political Development

A political system is not a stand-alone entity though we discuss it as

such for convenience of analysis. It is part and parcel of society, affects
other systems and is affected by them in turn. Here are a few ways it
happens

1. Social System

Social System Sociocultural norms of society have a deep impact on the

political system; an overly religious society will make it difficult for the
political system to become secular. Literacy rate, female status,
fatalistic mindset etc will slow rate of political development

2. Economic Factors

The stage of economic development of a country has much to do with

political development. In fact, both go hand in hand. Economic
development expands the middle class which demands greater
empowerment thus speeding the process of political development

3. Political Factors
Interestingly, the nature of the political system itself has a lot to do
with its development. If a country run by political elite would progress
politically, impose Martial Law and the speed and scope of political
development would slow down

4. External Factors

A country which is facing an existential threat from its powerful

hegemonic neighbour will have to spend a lot on its defence, leaving
less for economic development which as stated earlier is linked with its
political development

What is then Political Modernisation?

In all social sciences, there are some concepts which are simple to
understand but difficult to define. Political modernisation is one such
concept. Closely related to political development, it is slightly different.

“It’s the process of development and evolution from a lower to a higher

level, in which a country’s constitutional system and political life move
from the superstition of authority, autocracy and the rule of man to
rationality, autonomy, democracy & rule of law.” Shi Chenghu

According to Samuel Huntington, political modernization consists of

three basic elements
 1. rationalization of authority
2. differentiation of structure
3. expansion of political participation.

Political modernisation manifests itself in certain types of political

change, like political integration, political differentiation, and political
secularisation, and enhances the capacity of a society’s political system,
i.e. the effectiveness and efficiency of its performance

From the above explanations, you would notice that there is a thin red
line between political development & political modernisation. There is
a difference in degrees. Thus, the UK is politically modernised while
India is politically developed despite having the same style of political
systems.
NATO’s Expansion:
Objectives and
Consequences
Introduction

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (*NATO) was created in 1949 by 12

countries, including the U.S., Canada & other Western European
countries, to provide collective security against the former USSR

In May 1955, West Germany joined NATO, which was one of the
conditions agreed to as part of the end of the country’s occupation by
France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, prompting the
USSR to form their own collective security alliance, the Warsaw Pact,
later that month.

After the breakup of the USSR, it should have been disbanded as

Russia demanded, or its scale of operations reduced. However, during
George Bush’s presidency, Americans started thinking about the
enlargement of NATO to not only keep the EU under American control
but also deny the EU an opportunity to fill the security vacuum in
Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.
They were particularly apprehensive about France’s traditional
independent foreign policy stance, and Germany’s sensitivities towards
Russia

There is a lot of controversy about whether NATO assured the leaders

of the former USSR, namely Yeltsin and Gorbachev, that there would
be no expansion of NATO toward Russia. NATO denies it, while
Russian leaders insist that informal assurances were given. Putin is
adamant

Russia had serious reservations about this expansion but was unable to
do anything because of its own weak position, and the fact that these
countries were not republics of the former USSR. However, Georgia
and Ukraine were the red lines for Russia

What are Russia’s objections to NATO expansion?

Because of the lack of any topographical barriers in its soft belly to stop
aggression, and a long history of invasions, Russia is extremely
sensitive to NATO expansion towards its borders. Some of their
specific objections are

1. NATO should have been disbanded after the fall of the USSR;
instead, it is expanding towards its borders

2. Besides expanding, NATO is strengthening its aggressive

capabilities. In 2016, NATO deployed four multinational
battlegroups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
 3. Deployment of the missiles in the Aegis Ashore site in
Romania threatens Russian security

4. NATO nuclear sharing and nuclear exercises violate the Non-

Proliferation Treaty

5. By suspending practical cooperation with Russia, NATO

undermines Russia’s security.

6. Russia has the right to demand a guarantee that Ukraine and

Georgia will not join NATO

7. NATO whips up ‘hysteria’ over Russia’s exercises while it

conducts full-scale exercises.

8. NATO is a U.S. geopolitical project by proxy

9. NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia

What is the hidden agenda of NATO's expansion towards

Russia?
1. Containment of China: Since the early 1990s, all
successive American presidents have put countering the
military rise of China at the forefront of America’s national
security strategy and its national defence strategy. However,
they understand that as long as Russia is standing with China,
it is impossible to contain its rise. They are brow-beating
Russia to become their partner against China for its
containment instead of becoming China’s ally

2. Access to Resources: Central Asia is endowed with water

and abundant rich and varied energy resources
— hydropower, oil, gas, and coal. These resources have
traditionally been of interest because of their connection to
Russia, but over the past decade, this link has increasingly
become less relevant as exports to China have started to
dominate. American and European firms are desperate to
have a firm foothold in the region before the Chinese firms
crowd them out.

3. Neo.Con Agenda: In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz wrote a

document arguing that the United States would remain the
“unipolar global hegemon”. It became the input for the now
notorious 1997 document “Project for the New American
Century”. Essentially, what these documents are claiming is
that China and Russia, Iran, North Korea, and violent Islamic
extremist groups are the enemies of the United States and
 existential threats to the U.S. and the U.S.-imposed world
order.

4. Military-Industrial Complex: American foreign policy is

heavily dominated by its Military-Industrial Complex which
wants to sell its armaments for which constant warfare is
needed

5. Cutting Russia to Size: Americans/NATO believe Russia

has become too big for its shoes, challenging the USA and its
allies everywhere. They are perturbed over their Middle East
and Afghanistan fiascos and rightly blame Russia for their
defeats in these two war theatres

6. Balkanisation of Russia: The USA and its allies do not

consider Russia a superpower or as a threat to their security.
To them, Russia, because of its dwindling population but huge
territory, is no longer a viable state which needs to break into
pieces

Why do Ukraine, Finland, etc. want to join NATO?

Finland and Sweden have for decades been NATO’s closest partners,
despite their official “non-alignment.”

Security; All neighbouring countries of Russia are wary of its

newfound zeal to reincarnate the USSR in a new form. They have seen
life under Soviet rule; they do not want to go back. Ask Arabs if would
like to reincarnate the Ottoman Empire, which Erdogan and his party
are very keen on. Finland’s President Sauli Niinistö says his country is
seeking NATO membership because Russia’s invasion proved that the
Kremlin does not respect officially non-aligned countries. Sweden’s
Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson also pointed to Russia’s actions.
Ukraine, along with Georgia, sought to join NATO at the Bucharest
Summit in 2008, viewing it as a route to independence from Russian
influence

Prosperity: While their states want to join NATO for security

reasons, their societies want to join them for prosperity and a good
quality of life. They know that the NATO umbrella would facilitate
trade, travel, investment, etc., enlarging their opportunities. That is
why Public support for NATO membership in the Nordic countries
shot up virtually overnight after Russia invaded Ukraine, with a
substantial majority in both countries now in favour of joining the
alliance.
Political System: Definition
& Functions

What is a System

A system is a group of elements interacting among themselves for a

purpose under certain rules of the game. It has thus four features

1. It consists of multiple parts

2. All parts are interacting with one another; the mal-
functioning of one or more affects the whole system
 3. They interact among themselves under certain rules and
procedures
4. It is result-oriented, producing results

A computer is an exact example of a system in which its constituents

namely electric plug, monitor, processor, mouse, keyboard etc are
constituents. These constituents are designed to process the
information put into the processor which produces results in the form
of documents. Thus every system has three sub-systems

1. Input Sub-system: electric plug, mouse, keyboard

2. Processing Sub-system: main computer with its own
operating system
3. Output Sub-system: any paraphernalia attached to the
main computer

What is a Political System?

Every state has one overriding objective namely to improve the quality
of life of its citizens. To fulfil this role, it devises certain policies and
takes actions; these policies and actions are carried out by three
interrelated but distinct systems

1. Social System: It consists of people in their social

role(raising families, marrying, interacting with people,)clubs,
religion, a peaceful environment
 2. Economic System: It consists of people in their economic
role (buying goods, performing services for a price, producing
goods for profit etc), firms, budget making, businesses,
chambers of commerce, trade associations etc
3. Political System: It consists of people in their political role
(voting, protesting, obeying laws etc), constitution,
parliaments, rules of procedures of assemblies, election
commissions, election rules and procedures bureaucracy,
rules of business, judiciary, media, political parties etc

Thus the political system is the set of formal legal institutions that
constitute a “government” or a “state”, carrying out their assigned
functions under certain rules and procedures to assist the state in
achieving its overriding objective namely improving the quality of life
of a common man

Every political system has three components

1. Political Structures: Formal or informal institutions such

as constitution, political parties, pressure groups, parliament,
election commission, bureaucracy, etc. (Call them the
hardware of the political system)
2. Political Processes: Formal or informal actions carried out
by these institutions such as holding meetings by political
parties, conducting elections by the election commission,
 making policies by the parliament, and implementing these
policies by bureaucracy. (Call them the operating system)
3. Political Culture: Those attitudinal and behavioural
patterns of the people and institutions that distinguishes one
system from the other such as tolerance or lack of it, respect
for laws and procedures, accepting dissent,

(Notice; while the political structures and political processes in two

countries may be the same, like those in the UK and Pakistan, it is the
third element namely political culture that distinguishes one political
system from the other)

What are the Functions of a Political System?

According to Almond and Powell, every political system, whether

democratic or authoritarian, has to perform eight functions

1. Polotical Socialisation

Political socialisation is the process whereby individuals are inducted

into the political culture and their orientations towards political objects
are formed.

Political socialisation, which starts early in one’s life, enables people to

not only acquire values and opinions that shape their political stance
and ideology but also helps transmit norms and behaviours acceptable
to a well-running political system from one generation to another.
Some of the agents of political socialisation are

1. Family: Families heavily contribute to children’s initial

political ideological views or party affiliations.
2. Schools: Schools teach students key principles such as
individual rights and property, personal responsibility and
duty to their nation.
3. Media: Media plays an extremely important role in the
political socialisation of individuals as it is not only a source of
political information but it is also an influence on political
values and beliefs.
4. Religion: Religious beliefs and practices play a role in
political opinion formation and political participation. The
theological and moral perspectives offered by religious
institutions shape judgement regarding public policy, and
ultimately, translates to direct “political decision-making on
governmental matters
5. Political Parties: Political parties have more role to play in
reinforcing the political views of an individual than its
formation as other agents have.
6. The state: The state is a key source of information for media
outlets, and can inform, misinform, or disinform the press
and thus the public.

2. Political Recruitment
Political recruitment is the process whereby citizens actively take part
in politics i.e, joining a political party, standing for elections, holding
public offices, policy-making, etc.

Political recruitment is a basic function of political parties: a party that

cannot attract and then nominate candidates surrenders its elemental
opportunity for power. Two stages may conveniently be distinguished
in the process of recruitment. Certification includes the social
screening and political channelling that results in eligibility for
candidacy, while selection includes the actual choice of candidates to
represent parties in the general election.

3. Interest Articulation

Interest articulation is the process of airing the demands of people in

a structured way for their acceptance by the competent authority

When a group of people make demands through any channel such as

media, trade association, NGO, protest, agitation etc to the competent
authority, it is known as interest articulation. Thus, asking the state to
provide public goods and services like food, shelter, clothing etc at
affordable prices, maintaining law and order, defending us from
external threats, and protecting us from a pandemic, are all cases of
interest articulation.

In every polity, several interest groups are striving hard to advance

their agenda for getting a maximum share from the national kitty. For
example, farmers will be interested to get maximum subsidies, lower
prices for agricultural inputs they use and the best prices for their
output. Industrialists will press for the imposition of high import
duties to earn maximum profit in a protected environment while
consumers will be keen to lower the import duties on imports to have
access to foreign products at affordable prices.

These interest groups usually have their own organisations such as

chambers of commerce and industry, farmers’ associations etc and
formulate their own sets of demands for their presentation to the
policymakers. In this endeavour, they are involved in alliance building
with other groups with whom they can enter into giving and taking
agreements. Press is one important vehicle for airing their demands
which are extensively used during the elections by different interest
groups to ensure their interests are reflected in the manifestos of the
political parties contesting the elections. They use the services of the
lobbyist not only at this stage but also at other stages.

4. Interest Aggregation

Interest aggregation is the process of analysing the conflicting

demands of various interest groups and synthesising the form of
options for its presentation to the policymakers for the formulation of
appropriate policies

In a democratic set-up, it is the political parties which normally

perform this function; in an authoritarian set-up, it is the bureaucracy
which is responsible for interest aggregation. A political party contains
various groups in its folds, some of which with competing interests and
demands. For example, farmers would lobby for higher prices for their
outputs and lower ones for agricultural inputs like fertilizers, pesticides
etc.

On the other hand, the industrialists and trading class in the same
party would press for the opposite. Political parties try to aggregate the
demands of these competing members in their respective folds through
consultations and come up with viable policy options acceptable to
their members. These demands are reflected in their election
manifestos during the election campaigns or presented to the decision-
making fora through their elected members

5. Rule Making

Rule making is the process whereby the competent authority, usually

the elected representatives, deliberate upon the options for the
resolution of a problem, and formulate an appropriate actionable
plan of action for its resolution in the form of policy guidelines

It is the prerogative of the elected members of the country to formulate

the policies but they cannot formulate any policy in a vacuum. The
demands brought forward by the elected members of different political
parties in the parliament are first handled by the bureaucracy which is
the repository of the historical knowledge and channel of stability in
the country examines these demands and consults the relevant
stakeholders in the public or private sector as well as the concerned
civil society organisations. A draft with various options along with their
respective pros and cons and specific recommendations is presented to
the concerned legislative body.

Once the draft is put up, it is scrutinised by the select/standing

committee where all those likely to be affected by the implementation
of the proposed policy may be called for a hearing of their views. Lastly,
it comes to the decision-making forum cabinet or the parliament where
it is again discussed and fine-tuned. Once a consensus has been
reached or the majority has agreed, the policy is approved.

In any political system, the role of the leader is very crucial but the
degree of his influence is directly proportionate to the governance
structure of the country. Thus, in a totalitarian state, the leader plays
larger than life role in policy formulation while in a purely democratic
set up his discretion to formulate a policy is greatly curtailed by the
requirements of institutional consensus he has to build to frame a
policy.

Most countries fall in between these two extremes. Thus, a charismatic

leader in a democratic set-up may play a dominant role than the
institutional consensus would have warranted otherwise. On the other
hand, a weak leader in a totalitarian state may have to accommodate
the wishes of the other members of the ruling elite in formulating a
policy
6. Rule Implementation

Rule implementation is the process of implementing the policy

formulated by the public representatives by devising approbate
strategies to achieve the objectives of the policies

Once a policy has been approved, it is the responsibility of the

bureaucracy to implement it in letter and spirit. For this purpose, they
prepare appropriate practicable strategies, as well as rules and
procedures to ensure the effective and efficient achievement of the
objectives set in the policy. Thus a policy is a general statement of
intentions of the political elite while a strategy is its implementation
plan made by the bureaucracy. Its detailed implementation is with the
lower formations

For example, politicians make a place where all appointments in the

government sector will be made transparently. Bureaucracy prepares a
strategy that these will of the policymakers would be carried out by
conducting written examinations for all new inductees. To implement
this strategy, they prepare elaborate rules such as the format of the
examination to be held, where it would be held, who would prepare the
question papers, who will conduct interviews, how many numbers
would be allocated to interviews etc. In case of any difficulty, the
bureaucracy is supposed to bring it to the notice of those who
formulated it and get it revised

7. Rule Adjudication
Rule adjudication is the process wherein the courts decide whether
the policy made is under the constitution, and more importantly
whether it is being implemented in true spirit.

Thus a decision by a higher court on whether the policies made by the

public representatives are by the constitution or not is a clear case of
rule adjudication. Similarly, when a court decides that a public office
holder has not decided a case under the policy laid down by the public
representatives is a rule adjudication.

Sometimes, the policy formulated by the elected representatives is

against the fundamental law of the land i.e., the Constitution or its
implantation itself may result in gross injustice to the public. In both
cases, the judiciary itself or on the petition of anyone adversely affected
can act and either refer it back to the elected representatives for its re-
examination or it can strike it down completely.

However, more important than its interpretation, the courts come into
the picture when a person aggrieved with any action of bureaucracy
approaches the court with the plea that the action of a civil servant is
not following the provisions of the policy formulated. Here the court
then adjudicates whether the concerned civil servant has strictly
followed the rules or not while making a decision

8. Political Communication
Political communication is the process where various types of
information are passed among different stakeholders in the system.

Thus when a group of citizens express their demand through a press

release to lower the prices of petrol or a government issues a statement
about its inability to do so, political communication is taking place.
Political communication also takes place when the interest groups or
the media point out the deficiencies in the policy implemented to the
higher authorities No policy formulated by the elected representatives
can be without flaws nor it is etched in stone. Here the press and civil
society play a very important role by pointing out the anomalies or the
adverse consequences of any policy formulated or being implemented.
This feedback plays a key role in amending a policy formulated or even
its repealing if necessary