Eurasia Press & News
At a time when the global order is in a state of flux, the 30th anniversary of the renowned yet controversial book The Clash of Civilizations & the Remaking of the World Order becomes a fitting moment for taking stock of things.
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union were ‘celebrated’ in the West with the formulation of the ‘End of History’ thesis. Propounded by the political scientist Francis Fukuyama, it argued that the end of the Cold War marked the endpoint of humankind’s ideological evolution—this end was characterized by the triumph of ‘liberal democracy’ and American political institutions globally. The nature of the Western victory vindicated the ‘supremacy’ of the Western way of life as a template for the rest of the world to emulate.
Another thinker, Samuel P. Huntington, sought to address this irrational exuberance. Written in 1996, his book The Clash of Civilizations & the Remaking of the World Order marks its 30th anniversary this year. In that context, it becomes an opportune occasion to analyze the contents of this piece of academic work in light of the ongoing geopolitical circumstances.
One thing that stands out is how the West conveniently forgot Huntington’s warnings about its self-serving behaviour and how the West has come to bear the consequences of its imperious behaviour
The Substance of the theory
Huntington argued that the post-Cold War period would see a change in the world order. For him, future conflicts would no longer be conditioned by ideology; rather, they would be heavily influenced by cultural factors, with religion playing a definite role. In that vein, he divided the world into distinct civilisational blocs: Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, African, Western, and Orthodox; in doing so, he posited that conflicts in the future would play out in two forms—fault-line conflicts marked by intra-civilisational struggles and macro-level conflicts characterized by the conflicts among civilisations. Such conflicts would not only shape the world but would also play a key role in shaping societies at the granular level, affecting intra- and inter-community relations.
A Warning to the West
Huntington, however, was scathing in his indictment of Western arrogance. He asserted that the West is dominant not because of the appeal of its ideas and institutions; rather, it is dominant because it is adept in the monopoly exercise of violence. In a way, Huntington was warning the West about the repercussions of its post-Cold War victory attitude. High on ‘ideological success’ and hell-bent on moulding the world in its own image, the world soon paid the price of this attitude—Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Kosovo, and Syria all suffered in ways that words simply cannot fathom, thanks to the America-led West’s democracy spreading obsession.
Even today, the world is witnessing this madness unfold in Iran, where America is trying to topple a legitimately elected government of a sovereign state for what? For spreading democracy, for making the Middle East safe, and most importantly for establishing a just political order in the country, something that Uncle Sam seeks to bring to reality by invoking the Thomistic concept of just war.
Further, Huntington had warned the West that civilisations decay from within long before succumbing to external pressure. This is particularly apt in the context of the West’s ongoing decline. It is suffering from a multiplicity of issues itself—political polarization, culture wars, and a widening rift between the governing elites and the common masses.
Concord, Not Discord
No theory is without flaws. Even as he railed against the West’s hubris, his belief that intra- and inter-civilisational differences would inevitably degenerate into fault line conflict has proven to be false. In this contemporary period, we have witnessed the rise of civilisational states not merely as cultural entities, but also as concrete political actors. States like Russia, China, India, among others are collaborating in global forums like BRICS, SCO, and UNFCCC to name a few.
Without possessing cultural uniformity, something that Huntington and other Western thinkers before him considered to be a necessary precondition of state actors to achieve success, these countries have proven that diversity is not a problem—the problem is the mentality that considers diversity to be an issue. Intra- and inter-civilisational diversities are supposed to reflect the beauty of humankind, not confine it into airtight cultural compartments.
In conclusion, it can be stated that Huntington’s formulation may be true to a certain degree and false in others, yet one thing that stands out is how the West conveniently forgot Huntington’s warnings about its self-serving behaviour and how the West has come to bear the consequences of its imperious behaviour.
