Contesting Modernity : Democracy, Autocracy and the Struggle for Global Order

“We’re at an inflection point,” U.S. President Joe Biden said in his address at the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference, “between those who argue that, given all the challenges we face, autocracy is the best way forward, they argue, and those who understand that democracy is essential.” He’s right. The world is once again witnessing the rise of revisionist autocratic powers seeking to disrupt and eventually dislodge the postwar liberal order.

Russia, under Vladimir Putin, for instance, has waged a full-fledged invasion of Ukraine in direct violation of the UN Charter and the widely accepted norm of sovereignty. China is also becoming more assertive, as is apparent with its recent military drills in the Taiwan Strait and its intensified dispute with the Philippines. Iran and North Korea are also in the mix, with both contributing to rising regional instability in the Middle East and East Asia, respectively. The United States and its democratic allies will have no choice but to compete and confront these illiberal powers.

Contesting Modernity

But what does this competition represent? What is actually at stake? It is easy to define this competition as simply a struggle for power and geopolitical dominance. After all, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are acting according to the standard logic of power politics and seeking to push the United States out of their respective regions. They are, according to this line of argument, essentially balancing against a hegemonic United States.

While there’s some element of truth in that argument, to stop the explanation there would only get us so far. One must also recognize that what we are seeing now is as much an ideological competition as it is a geopolitical one. It is, essentially, a contest of modernity. The two groups competing in this rivalry represent different ideological visions for the future of global order. On the one hand, the United States and its allies are competing for a world that is liberal and democratic in character. On the other hand, the authoritarian bloc of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is working to disrupt and disband the liberal order and replace it with a world where America is not dominant and liberal and democratic values are dislodged.

Thus, the stake is high. Whichever bloc wins the competition gets to set the future of the global order. Their ideological vision would determine how the world would look in the future. As Hal Brands argued that the outcome of this struggle would “determine whether the twenty-first century extends the relatively peaceful, prosperous world… or thrusts us back to a darker past.”

The Rhyme of History

Yet, it is important to note, however, that this kind of rivalry is hardly novel in modern history. “Since the late 1800s,” Daniel Kliman wrote, “the world’s major democracies have repeatedly navigated the ascendance of other nations.” And, most important, the “other nations” here were mainly autocracies. Thus, facing rising autocratic powers should not come as a surprise to anyone living in liberal democratic states.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Great Britain had to face the ever-expanding French Empire under Napoleon I. The 20th century, perhaps, offers a clearer picture of the struggle between democracies and autocracies. “During these decades,” John Ikenberry wrote, “world wars and geopolitical struggles pitted the liberal democracies against rival autocratic, fascist, and totalitarian great powers.” Great Britain, France, and the United States, among others, had to confront the rise of Imperial and Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Then, even after the guns went silent in 1945, the United States led the democratic world as they faced yet another autocratic adversary, this time in the form of the Soviet Union.

In each of these instances, it was clear that ideology was a powerful force driving the great powers. Nazi Germany, for instance, was bent on establishing geopolitical dominance based on the fascist ideology of Nazism. Hitler was especially dangerous, not only for his appetite for expansionism but also because of his inherently racist ideology. Similarly, the Soviet Union was also a threat because of its revolutionary Marxist-Leninist ideology, which drove the Kremlin to pursue a foreign policy to export and impose its vision over Europe and many other parts of the world. Imagine what the world would look like if any of these two powers had won the struggle against democracies.

The Democratic Advantage

Modern history shows us one crucial fact: in all of these instances of great power rivalry since the 1880s, the victorious states have always been those of liberal and democratic character. Autocratic power may give them a run for their money; eventually, however, democracy prevails. This shows that “democracies do better in major power rivalries.” And just as in these previous instances, today’s democracies still possess what may be called the democratic advantage.

Matthew Kroenig correctly argued that democracies are better at amassing additional increments of power economically, militarily, and diplomatically. For once, the very fact that they are democratic states gives them an advantage in building a strong and dynamic economy. This is because, unlike in an autocratic state where the economy is centrally planned, economic institutions in a democracy are legalized, privatized, and free. Legalized in the sense that democratic governments adhere to the rule of law, which means that economic activities are protected. Furthermore, democratic states champion private property over state control. Lastly, economic activities in these states are free, which means that market forces are the main drivers. Thus, generally speaking, democracies encourage entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition, which are the main ingredients of economic growth.

Most important, because democracies are better at amassing economic power, Kroenig argued, they are also better at amassing military power. Because democracies are among the wealthiest states, they are able to build more effective, efficient and capable militaries. This is also supported by the fact that democracies are also among the world’s most technologically advanced states, which certainly adds to their military advantages. It is no wonder then, that today’s most powerful military belongs to a democratic United States.

By having a powerful economy and military and widely attractive liberal values and principles, it is also unsurprising to find that democracies have relative advantages in terms of global influence. For once, the current liberal order, despite its flaws and ongoing state of crisis, is still arguably resilient. Its basic principles, values, and norms are still very much alive today. “The ideas and impulses of an open, rules-based, and progressively oriented international order,” John Ikenberry argued, “run deep in world politics.” In short, liberal modernity has deep roots.

Furthermore, while autocratic states are becoming closer to each other in recent years, so too is the case with democratic states. For instance, Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine was widely assumed to fracture the liberal democratic West over its support for Kyiv. And yet, the West remains strongly united in their opposition to Putin’s invasion and their support for Ukraine. Unlike today’s autocracies, the West and liberal democracies in general are united in their firm belief in liberalism and democracy.

The Way Forward

The fact that democracies have always been the victorious parties in past competitions and that they have relative advantages does not imply that policymakers should take it for granted. Democracies should and must envision a rational and prudent strategy for confronting autocratic challenges. And one way to win the current competition is for democracies to reflect on themselves to see whether they have indeed lived up to the very ideas to which they adhere. To win the battle for modernity, they must first fully commit themselves to the liberal version of modernity. Democracies should also remain united and work to even greater lengths to strengthen that unity. Lastly, it is also important for democratic states to pursue better relations with other states that are not aligned with them or their autocratic adversaries.