Politics around the world suggests two major features: nations either adopt autocratic methods or engage in democratic practices. The foundations of politics start with human nature and the state of nature. Human nature encompasses both positive and negative aspects. The discourse on the origins, growth, and development of politics and public affairs involves a dichotomy between the pessimism of realists and the optimism of liberalists or idealists, leading to divisive debates.
Even individuals engaged in critical fields of practice find themselves influenced by both ideological camps. A student of politics starts with political thinkers in international relations, such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in the Western tradition. In the East, the study includes readings from ancient thinkers like Kautilya, Confucius, and Sun Tzu.
Liberalism and idealism are the penchant of many political thinkers and thought leaders who serve the state and society, playing a crucial role in international relations. These individuals may adopt either autocratic foreign policies or embrace a democratic approach when addressing international cases, problems, and conflicts. In essence, this article aims to explore the salient features and mindsets in international relations.
As the world undergoes a process of opening up and the political systems of the 21st century align with the evolving trends and transformations in democracy, no country has achieved a governance system that perfectly reflects the legitimate aspirations of its people. Imperfections are inherent and grounded in the realities of human nature and the state of nature. The exercise of sovereignty occurs within the government’s organs, driven either by the will of the people or the interests of political parties.
Democracy, despite its ideals, is far from perfect, and its realization in practice is often elusive. The vectors of discourse and policy incubations indicate that a truly existing democracy possesses aesthetics akin to an abstract painting or a canvas adorned with plural and diverse ideas, each vying for presence and relevance. The West, with its innovative approach to democracy’s design, stands as a contrast to the rest of the world, which is in the process of adapting, adopting, and adjusting to a system without deep historical roots.
Even as the West claims to be the exclusive champion of democracy and the true conscience of humanity, historical instances reveal that it too has not been immune to violence, coercion, or strategic policy approaches. These elements have been evident both in the colonial period and in contemporary imperial endeavours. However, in the name of democracy, autocratic decisions are made, and policies are forcefully imposed on the international stage, creating complex dynamics in global relations.
Relations exist within a stratified hierarchy in an anarchic world, where both internal and external affairs are prominently on display. Democracies exhibit variations, while autocracies shape the state of affairs to suit their objectives. The global concern for democracy is gaining universality, with an ongoing mission to establish checks and balances in human and state affairs, guided by emotions and reason. It is crucial to recognize that no country claiming to be a democracy is infallible in its international opinions.
Leadership is a shared responsibility, reflected in the discursive and deliberative practices of democracy within international relations. Leaders, however, are not flawless, and mistakes can occur in the pursuit of democratic ideals, just as autocrats may err in the name of the people. The term “demos” is both utilized and abused, leading to various perceptions and misperceptions at the international level.
The world operates as a complex interplay of human and physical forces striving to establish effective governance. The democratic approach to diplomacy or leadership in international relations is not without risks; it can become noisy or chaotic. The challenge lies in achieving unanimity and a clear stance, balancing both rationality and emotions. Autocracies may lack longevity in foreign and security policy, but democracies are not exempt from concerns about losing control or compromising eternal national interests. The invocation of enlightened national interests serves as a guiding principle for making just and sensible decisions in international relations.
Democracies exhibit variability in their approaches, evident in diverse diplomatic strategies, such as facilitating dialogue between warring nations or offering mediation to resolve conflicts or trade disputes. Autocracies, on the other hand, often favor central figures to handle such affairs and harbour mistrust toward the leadership of democratic nations. This discrepancy underscores a loss of democratic principles and practices when power politics take precedence over the dissemination of democratic values and liberties.
Within a democratic community or society, the exchange of differing perspectives contributes to shaping norms and values, fostering consensus or dissent. It is not imperative for democracies to align positions forcefully; instead, they can employ a range of tools—be it force, coercion, influence, or persuasion—to manage the raw emotions and rationales emanating from states and governments worldwide. The crucial question revolves around whether democratic principles manifest in the international behavior of democracies, distinct from autocracies devoid of such principles.
In times of conflict and war, democracies often emerge as effective forms of governance for achieving enduring peace, maintenance, and promotion. Autocracies, conversely, grapple with paranoia and identity crises, lacking robust legitimacy. International relations, by and large, tend to be authoritarian, excluding broader deliberations in policy implementation for global affairs. Only with the establishment of multilateral, continental, or regional organizations, do democratic approaches find expression—examples being the United Nations, the European Union, or regional groupings.
Strategic initiatives also aim to attract like-minded countries or influence competitors or adversaries. While a global consensus remains elusive, efforts are underway to incorporate diverse voices, concerns, and choices in the pursuit of global governance aligned with the collective will of the world’s states. Though the vision of a utopian global government remains uncertain, the trajectory seems to favour greater understanding, mutual benefits, and cooperation. While super forecasting the emergence of a global government may be challenging, there is hope that an open world and democratic aspirations will become the norm rather than the exception in the future.
We are witnessing a world that is drawing closer together, with international interests and news being increasingly consumed by civil society at both the global and national levels, encompassing collective and individual perspectives. I believe that a global civic culture is emerging, even though the revolutionary spirit of the Enlightenment, now a historical phenomenon, remains intrinsic to the conditions of humanity. Across the globe, people are inclined to pursue ideals such as liberty, fraternity, and justice as our perspectives expand beyond national borders. This might seem idealistic, but an anthropocentric world is taking shape, and the globe is becoming a space where human knowledge interfaces and political experiences and practices converge.
In this context, our choices and concerns are centred on existential rationality, aiming to safeguard the international society from the brink of human or natural catastrophe. Whether we embrace a conviction of liberty or adhere to illiberal, radical, or orthodox principles that contradict innate human nature amidst parochial forces, the focus of our current history seems to be bending towards openness and progress based on the principles of reciprocal liberty, justice, and truth.
