POLITICAL IDEOLOGY - A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

Democracy

There is much to be said for the ideals of Democracy. However, in 1947 Churchill declared that “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all of those other forms which have been tried from time to time”.

The Greek philosopher, Plato borne 427BC argued that democracy meant ruling by the ignorant. He opposed democratic governance and suggested it was conducive to mass ignorance, hysteria, and tyranny. Plato believed expertise to be the critical attributes of a leader. Now, in the 21st century, Western democracy is confronted by rival political systems as never before.

In How Democracy Ends, Cambridge University Prof, David Runciman quotes Joseph Schumpeter, writing in 1942 when he described democracy as a “Competition between teams of salesmen to get the voters to buy their product”. Runciman suggests that contemporary democracy is “tired, vindictive, self-deceiving and frequently ineffectual” and he proposes that there is room for alternatives, saying the Chinese political system projects itself as “meritocratic”.

Democracy, by its nature requires competition between political parties yet, in the US hostility between Democrats and Republicans has become so extreme as to give rise to speculation (fortunately unfounded) of a threat of civil war.

America’s Violent Pursuit of Democracy

The US determination to promote liberalism abroad has been a failure at almost every turn. It waged war, laying waste to parts of the Korean Peninsula and later to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Millions were killed. It targeted Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria hoping to install stable democracies, friendly to the US. Instead, they brought killing and destruction to the greater Middle East.

The belief that democracy promotes peace is a myth. A recent database published by Tufts University shows that the US has engaged in more than 100 military interventions since 1991 and the Tufts Military Intervention Project reports that the US has undertaken more than 500 international military interventions since 1776. Jimmy Carter was not exaggerating when he said, “The US is the most warlike nation in the history of the world”.

Members of the US Congress compete to see who can appear the most belligerent against China. However, it in the overwhelming interests of the US and the rest of the world for America to work with, not against China and to seek a path of cooperation and collaboration rather than one of confrontation and containment.

Challenging “Autocracies”

In The Eurasian Century, published in 2025, Hall Brands writes about “a new axis of authoritarians”, which aims to create a revised international order with an “illiberal Asia”. He describes Eurasia as becoming the epicentre of competition and conflict. Brands refers to the famous statement by Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) when he wrote, referring to Eurasia that “Who rules the Heartland, rules the World-Island; whoever rules the World-Island commands the World”.

According to Brands, if “aggressive autocracies” become pre-eminent in Eurasia it could fundamentally reshape world order. He argues that the emergence of “totalitarian states” would fuel aggression and conquest, pitting them against “Liberal” superpowers whose freedom depends on dashing those designs. He writes, somewhat anxiously about the need for America to win a new Cold War against this new “axis of authoritarians..”

For Brands, democracies would become an “endangered species in areas with heavy Chinese influence”, adding that violence and brutality would cascade across areas where “revisionist states” hold sway. Brands failed even to mention that the US has been at war for 97% of its history whereas, “autocratic” China  last went to war in 1979 in a brief encounter with Vietnam.

Brands is obsessed with political ideology, but he could not have missed the statement in April 2024 by Chinese leader Xi Jinping when he said “The two countries should be partners, not rivals; they should seek common ground instead of vicious competition. I have said many times that the Earth is big enough for China and the United States to develop together and prosper independently.”

The Trump Effect

Trump is no ideologue. As Cameron Stewart wrote in The Australian on 17 May 2025, “Trump strode across Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates in a way that his predecessor, Joe Biden never could have”. On 20th May Greg Sheridan described Trump’s barnstorming tour of the Middle East as one of the most significant and productive interventions by an American president in the region’s history. Sheridan added, “If Trump is seen ultimately to have played a key role in stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, weaning Syria away from radicalism and Iran, securing a Saudi peace with Israel and cementing US influence among the Gulf Arabs, history will look very favourably on this trip”.

Trump met with Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, referring to him as a “young, attractive guy” and calling him a real leader. Trump has lifted sanctions on Syria, and suggested that Sharaa consider normalizing relations with Israel and joining the Abraham Accords. Trump’s disregard for the rules of the game creates opportunities in the Middle East which are likely to benefit Israel.

Diplomacy between Tehran and Washington has shifted into overdrive with both sides keen to continue negotiating. In 2019, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed never to negotiate with the US president, but now he appears open to a nuclear deal, while Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian makes no secret of his preference for direct talks with Washington.[i]

Despite optimism, the need for caution remains with Iran’s Foreign Minister saying, “Enrichment in Iran will continue with or without a deal, but if the US is interested in ensuring that Iran will not have nuclear weapons, a deal is within reach”.[ii]

During his first term in office, Trump met the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un but he faced heavy criticism from the Washington establishment, resulting in a failure of his ambition to bring about a more peaceful relationship with North Korea and potentially a reconciliation with South Korea. Instead, Trump came away empty-handed and today, North Korea has emerged as a major nuclear power. An opportunity for dialogue and reconciliation was missed.

Asian Style Democracy is Different

In his book, When Trees Fall, Monkeys Scatter, Sydney University Prof John Keane challenges the assumption that “liberal democracy” is the standard by which Chinese politics should be measured. According to Keane, the idea that elections to choose government such as in the United States and Britain are the only way is erroneous and he suggests China is better described as a “One party dominated political system” which nurtures experiments with a wide range of democratic tools.

Many in the USA believe they have a moral responsibility to overthrow a “tyrannical” Communist Party system even though China has no wish to undermine or to overthrow “democracy” and has no expectation that other societies should become like them. When Xi Jinping addressed the United Nations he said, “Let us unite more closely to create a mutually beneficial partnership and a community of a shared future for mankind – a world free of war and enjoying lasting peace. Let development, prosperity, fairness, and justice spread across the world”.[iii] 

In 2015, Obama said in reference to India, “The world will be a safer and a more just place when our two democracies – the world’s largest democracy and the world’s oldest democracy – stand together”. However, B.R. Ambredkar, who drafted the Indian constitution at the time of India’s independence warned that democracy in India was only “Top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic”. When asked whether he thought that democracy would work in India he replied, “We have a social structure which is totally incompatible with parliamentary democracy”.

Multipolarity

The US has spent the last 30 years pursuing a foreign policy which seeks to spread liberal principles of democratic governance. However, as the international system moves towards “Multipolarity” with the emergence of other powers such as China, India, and Russia, America’s unipolar moment in the sun is largely over and alternative systems of government now hold out the prospect of a potentially safer world. Like it or not, a new world order is rapidly emerging.

The membership of BRICS has expanded from the original five and now stands at eleven full members representing a huge proportion of the world’s population. BRICS has recently expanded further adding a number of “partner countries”. Unlike former president Biden who refers to the struggle between “Democracy and Autocracy”, and “Good v Evil”, BRICS is not ideologically driven. Its members include democracies, a theocracy, a monarchy and also “dictatorships”. Despite these differences, the organisation is the key platform for moving towards multipolarity. Countries are drawn to BRICS because it offers the alternative of a more diverse, multipolar world and embraces the diversity of different civilisations and cultures.

Then there are the 10 nations making up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with an aggregate population of some 700 million. Each of these nations has its own form of government including Multi-party, Monarchy, a One-party State, a Marxist-Leninist Republic, an Islamic Sultanate, and a Socialist Communist State.  Despite these differences, ASEAN is a highly successful bloc. Its member states are not ideologically driven and have adopted a culture of consultation and consensus, leading to harmony, peace, and prosperity.

Humanity

In 2019, President Xi Jinping said, “Civilisations don’t have to clash with each other. We should keep our civilisations dynamic and create conditions for other civilisations to flourish. Together we can make the garden of the world’s Civilisations colourful and vibrant”.

In 1963, John F Kennedy (having faced the real possibility of nuclear war) said, “Let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal”.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM – HEAR THE OTHER SIDE

[i] Why Khamenei is betting on Trump, Foreign Policy, May 2025

[ii] Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran, The Australian, 22 May 2025

[iii] Rethinking Global Governance by Mark Beeson, 2019