Decline and Power

 It is no secret that I have had a weak hope that our civilisation might avoid the rapid degeneration experienced by our predecessors. I have argued that despite its numerous crises, the Song Dynasty could inspire us in this. But nothing suggests that we will alter our corse. Thus, for now I will lay aside my utopian wishes for a prolonged  modernity and a postponement of our decline. I will only look at the facts.

 

As said earlier, both division of countries and organisations, populist politicians, polarisation and indeed more and more authoritarian and autocratic regimes are parts of the decline. But these possibilities or symptoms per se have different consequences for the survival and power of countries. And these consequences further depend on the specific handling and implementation of policies. Context, especially demography is yet another crucial variable. And not least, the Consequences depend on the qualifications and the durability of rule of groups and their leaders. In the following we will look briefly at the effects of the manifestations of the decline in five nations and unions.

 

As usual, I will focus on the biggest players. I will start reusing parts from the last post about the EU and India. The EU faces the risk of gradually becoming a failed union as populist nationalists win influence and try to change the union into a bunch of petty states. The rift between East and West Europe can only add to this development which could break the inner spine of the union. The obvious reaction to the present world situation would be if the European nations moved tight together. The populist nationalist traitors will instead divide it and thereby let it be ruled from abroad. If the Rassemblement  National wins power, then even the Franco-German CPU will be damaged.  And if Trump and a degenerated Republican Party returns to power, the EU could also begin to lose its outer skeleton. Thus all in all, for the power of the European Union the symptoms of the decline could have detrimental consequences.

 

As said in earlier posts, India is demographically and politically heterogeneous and must be ruled in a way that perhaps is authoritarian, but which should also encompass all the biggest political and religious segments of its society. For several years this  has not been the case. Instead we have seen  a narrow almost autocratic rule. This is perhaps the main manifestation of the world wide decline in India. As a result, large parts of population and politics feel left out. As said, the Moslem part could become attracted further into the civilisation in the Middle East.  Clearly, such policies will weaken the cohesion and strength of India, cf. my last post. Thus, like the EU, India’s prospects have also been diminished because of the decline.

 

Russia is a completely different case. Here we have a westernised segment of civil society which follow the course of our modernity. This segment is presently losing influence. Corresponding segments also exist in the other East European countries, and here they are bigger. But in Russia the majority of the people and politics is partly beyond the European, now global civilisation. The East European Civilisation with Russia is now in a phase where we were 1000 years ago. This is not meant as an indication of backwardness. One might also say that this civilisation owns the future. Russia has for centuries been confronted with strong powers in our civilisation. The strategy employed since Peter the Great has been and still is to build a defence segment, which is “Western” in technology, structure and function. You could say that a country from one civilisation has created a military-industrial complex in the style of another. This is necessary for a country which otherwise would be difficult to defend because in principle it is a primordial feudal world confronted with an advanced alien world in a more “developed” stage. Thus, the term “decline” is irrelevant for the real power of Russia. But as we have seen earlier in history, the present pressure from the outside seems to unite Russia and increase its resilience.

 

Let us now look at the United States and China.  Are they like the EU and India also weakened by the political decline? First the United States. Here the degeneration shows itself as a more and more chaotic fight between extremely polarised parties which even compete in influencing the judicial system and other supposedly neutral institutions. This is coupled with extreme paranoia against the other party and against foreign powers. The same happened in Rome two  millennia  ago. Obviously all this can only weaken the cohesion and power of America. As I have often said, the Romans could afford such conditions because they after the abandonment of the Hellenised East had no serious opponents. Present-day America is not in this situation. It has both China and Russia as serious competitors. The effects of the inner chaos in America can only partly be mitigated by the enormous industrial and military strength. And the  strength in these fields could also be undermined by the decline.

 

Thus, the fate of the United States is determined by a) how much its political system deteriorates. Here a period of Democrat rule slows the downward move, while Republican rule accelerates it. It is no wonder if enemies of the United States prefer a Trump presidency. The other factor which determines the fate of America is b) the strength of its foreign opponents.

 

China experiences an opposites version of the political decline: autocratic rule. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage for its power? This question is not that easy to answer. It depends on the qualities of the leader and the duration of his or her rule. If he makes mistakes, or he is too dictatorial and only represents a narrow set of opinions, society and politics can be split. This could lead to a shortening of his rule. Another important factor for the long term effects of an autocratic rule is the succession. Is the successor who inherits absolute power, a capable leader or not?

 

But also an autocratic leader can temporarily unite and strengthen China through coercion and police forces. This is the present situation. Thus, for now as opposed to America, Europe and India, China is strengthened by its manifestation of the political decline. The main explanation is that China is  more homogeneous than the EU, India and the United States. This in itself gives better cohesion and also makes the nation easier to govern even without too much force. Of course the advantage for China will last only as long as the present rule can be sustained. It can suddenly or gradually be changed by suppressed opponents. What this would mean for the power of the country depends on a) the smoothness of the change and b) what kind of rule follows. A more collective rule could possibly ensure greater sustainability and continuous growth in power of the country unless it is too lenient.

 

In conclusion, right now political decline weakens America and strengthens China. The balance shifts to the advantage of the latter. But a new political situation in China could change this for worse or for better.

 

 

Poles and Civilisations

  

 

In earlier posts I have analysed polarisation as a phenomenon which a) divides the political world view into two opposite possibilities and b) let these possibilities become radical. In the beginning we only see political actors through such glasses. Soon the actors adopt this view and do become radicalised. I mostly looked at it within the Second European, now global civilisation. Here it is valid both within and between nations.

 

At the same time some argue that we live in a multipolar world. In reality matters are both simpler and much more complicated. Obviously, beside the two main world powers there are other big players, notably Russia, India and the EU, and there are countless intra- and international conflicts and micro-poles, but in comparison to the giants US, China and partly Russia these conflicts are insignificant unless they serve as proxies for the biggest. India could seem destined to become a superpower, but it is too heterogeneous and has been ruled in an almost autocratic way focused on very few political views favouring only Hindus and only parts of the spectrum of opinions. I have earlier criticised such rules, and they are even more self-defeating in a country as heterogeneous as India. Divisive rule does not make a nation a superpower unless the country is all mighty like the United States. The EU is also too divided to be taken seriously. Russia, because of its huge nuclear arsenal and vast strategic area, is close in strength to the superpowers, but as often stated, it is partly outside our civilisation.

 

Thus within our civilisation we are left with two major int’l poles, the United States and China. But what complicates matters is the additional presence of civilisation ‘poles’, if this word can be applied here. These are poles of another type and on a different higher level than the duality inside our own. As often said, civilisations are large units each encompassing several nations, and having a duration of at least 18 centuries with distinct phases. Different civilisations run in parallel but displaced in time, and crucially, they all have their individual culture or characteristics. Presently three are alive: a) the Second European, now global, b) the Oriental and c) the East European. Both their difference in phase resulting from the time-displacement and the different characters add extra antagonisms to the World. These are between civilisations, not within one. The antagonisms are both political and cultural.

 

To be able to better distinguish between these types of poles, I will introduce the term  “Sino-Western Civilisation”. In previous posts I have pointed to the extreme similarities between on the one hand the two European Civilisations and on the other hand the two Chinese Civilisations. When we look specifically at the phase of modernity the similarities between the present Globalised European Civilisation and China during the Song Dynasty (960-1279) are especially striking, e.g. in the checking and balancing of power, public debate and in phenomena like impressionist painting, technology and monetary system . The Song political system even managed to extend this modernity which started with the great revolutionary upheavals in the late ninth century to a duration of four centuries instead of the three typical for civilisations. It was only because of the final Mongolian invasions that China in 1279 arrived in the imperial autocratic rule which in all civilisations follows after a modernity. The long duration was probably due to the continued and always revitalised political debates and sharing of power which secured novel solutions and adaptations. Occasionally the country swung towards autocracy or was too pluralistic to be governable, but a balance was always reestablished.

 

 Unfortunately our Civilisation seems not to be able to do this. The “Free World” turns chaotic, while the other part becomes autocratic. Both are part of the decline. If we continue on this path, our modernity will end a little after 2100 after the usual duration of three centuries.

 

The extreme perturbations introduced in the nineteenth century by the European colonial powers can be seen as causing a re-awakening of older civilisations, especially their modernities. Thus after several centuries of stagnation China has re-entered a modernity. This one is a fusion of the re-awoken autochthon Song-time and the very similar present European / global modernity. As a) the two civilisations are now in the same phase and b) they are so similar, they can together be seen as the major representatives of a hybrid Sino-Western Civilisation.

 

 From within this Sino-Western Civilisation the world is often seen as only two pervasive diametrically opposite poles led by the two superpowers respectively. Affected by present hyper-polarisation, it all seems very simple.

West vs rest

Democracy vs dictatorship

Individual freedom vs state control etc.

Almost all conflicts in the world are understood as or they are pressed into subordinate emanations of this dichotomy. The big players even tend to adopt the prejudices of the other and confirm them.

 

All this entails that you ally yourself with any country with which you share aspects of one of the poles and distance yourself from other countries unless they are or can be made allies. Obviously at the same time, the big players try to keep or win allies and friends in the spheres of each other, no matter the internal policies of these potential allies. Especially if they are located at geographically or politically strategic places.

 

If we now add the layer of civilisations it turns out that this polarity is NOT the superordinate one. We may add three civilisational polarities and thus arrive at four dominating antagonisms:

 

1) In the Sino-Western Civilisation of course US vs China. They are presently in the internal endfight for hegemony inside our civilisation .

 

2) The Sino-Western Civilisation vs the old Oriental Civilisation, mainly the United States vs Iran and many radical Arabs.

 

3) The Sino-Western Civilisation vs the young East European Civilisation, presently the United States and Western Europe vs Russia plus east-west tensions in the EU.

 

4) The East European Civilisation vs the Oriental Civilisation. Presently  this mainly involves strong anti-immigrant attitudes in East Europe and Caucasian terrorists attacking Russia.

 

The first of these polarities is intra-civilisational, the others are inter-civilisational, cf. the levels introduced below.

 

 This gives rise to a complicated pattern which can be analysed as a series of levels with interactions within and between the levels.

 

LEVEL 1. Supra-poles = civilisations

The uppermost level is the civilisational. Here we of course have three supra-poles; the Sino-Western Civilisation, the East European Civilisation and the Oriental Civilisation. 

 

LEVEL 2. Poles within civilisations

On the second level we have the poles within each of these civilisations, eg.

 

a) In the Sino-Western Civilisation the United States vs China plus the minor players EU and India.

 

b) In the East European Civilisation Russia vs parts of East Europe.

 

c) In the Oriental Civilisation things are not that simple. Here important units and divisions often do not follow the political national borders, see below. For now I will just say politico -religious moderates vs radicals (not primarily terrorists).

 

LEVEL 3. Sub-poles within the poles

Below the poles we have several sub-poles with a certain duration like Republicans and Democrats, France and Germany plus many others.

 

Today’s dominating political thinking and actions are based on the framework of theSino-Western Civilisation. Here the relations and antagonisms are typically seen as were they between bricks on levels 2 and 3. The bricks differ in politics and strength, but otherwise they are seen as equal. The uppermost level of civilisations is too often forgotten in the equation. The levels below is the realm where so-called real-politic tries to operate.

 

But it is a question how “real” these politics can be if they do not take the difference of civilisations into account. In reality the entities on these lower levels are more and more influenced by the supra-level of civilisations.

 

 

ELABORATIONS

 

I. Oriental Civilisation vs Sino-Western Civilisation

 Hitherto the countries on both sides of this antagonism or at least their leaders have been on the way to a reconciliation based on the common focus on money. As said earlier, this inter-civilisation-antagonism is mainly the Orient vs the American part of our civilisation. The United States is perceived as a more alien part of our culture than China. It has a a history of petro- imperialism and above all, past and present support for Israel. Compared to this, the Uighur people are forgotten in the Middle East in return for money. A more and more right-wing Israel obviously counteracts the reconciliation between Orient and Occident. Iran and it’s proxies do the same.

 

The Orient has more than two important poles. Often mentioned is Sunni vs Shia, but almost more important is the division between a) opponents of the United States / Israel and b) collaborating governments. In many countries this last antagonism runs in parallel with the poles people vs rulers. The collaborating governments are pressed by their peoples which are enraged by the fate of the Palestinians. This process can renew the focus on the cultural uniqueness of the Oriental peoples. At the same time racist populations and right wing populists in Europe and America press their leaders and further increase the cultural alienation. It is important to note that the antagonism between the two Civilisations on both sides involves bigger segments of the populations and not only extremists.

 

During the Arab spring, a further set of poles was that between western-oriented democrats vs autocratic rulers. But the democratic pole was quickly subdued by Islamists and discredited by economic problems. The cultural alienation and the Israeli policies act in the same direction.

 

The vast Moslem populations between New Guinea and the Indus were originally a part of the Second Indian Civilisation. Here Hindus and Moslems were two poles. As a result of the general alienation between the West and the Middle East plus Hindu nationalism these South and South East Asian Moslems could increasingly tend to identify themselves with and become attracted into the Oriental Civilisation. This could double the size of this civilisation, a process with global ramifications. The policies of recent Israeli governments and the BJP can only accelerate this.

 

II. East European Civilisation vs Sino-Western Civilisation

As often said, East Europe seems to represent an emerging own civilisation.The Eastern part, i.e. Russia, is trying to leave our civilisation entirely. The Western part, i.e. the other East European countries are more moderate as they are culturally influenced from west. Politically they are of course part of the EU, but culturally they are not assimilated. Instead they act as a fifth column from an alien civilisation in the EU. Here they add to the general right-wing populism present in many West European countries, further weakening the cohesion of the EU. An inclusion of Ukraine into this union would increase its disintegration.

 

Obviously the East European countries immediately bordering Russia (and Belarus) are politically opponents of Russia, while some East European countries further to the west are often more positive. But all three belts (Russia, it’s hostile immediate neighbours and countries further to the west)  from Vladivostok to Belgrade, Budapest and Bratislava share parts of the same culture in different degrees. This culture gains in strength as our world declines.

 

The conflict which started with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is both intra-civilisational inside the East European Civilisation and inter-civilisational between the Sino-Western and the East European Civilisations.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The simultaneous presence of more than one set of poles makes understanding of and manoeuvring in the present world demanding. For a Sino-Western actor, the situation is often understood as a competition between America, China and Russia in a world with insignificant medium- and small-sized countries and a Middle Eastern wasp’s nest. From the viewpoint of power, this interpretation is indeed valid. It is only a natural part of the triangulation of power and the drive towards equilibrium that China and Russia are allied despite their difference in civilisation. The alliances between America and conservative Arab regimes can be viewed in the same light.

 

Alliances and conflicts can be on and between all the mentioned three levels. But because of the simplistic view of only one set of poles, the poles in the other antagonisms are seen as proxies of the players in the Sino-Western Civilisation.

 

Generally, the differences between civilisations are of immense importance and should always be taken in to the global equation. Presently they are increasing in strength as Russia and partly also the rest of East Europe isolate themselves culturally, Israel and Iran radicalise the Middle Eastern populations and immigration-driven racism grows in western populations.

 

Such increasing cultural and political alienation between the three civilisations will put strain on alliances and unions such as US-Arab relations, the EU and India.