The case for an open, liberal, transparent and democratic nation as the world’s leader
Authors
Would it be in the nature of things that open, liberal, transparent and democratic countries will always be the natural leaders of the world? These are the qualities that would breed liking and trust towards them, both at a domestic, social level, as well as at the country level. People would love to live in such a country. Nations themselves would be more willing to trust such nations in their interactions. This would allow people around the world to cede leadership to such states. They’ll be more willing to hand over control to these trusted allies, safe in the understanding that their interests would be better protected by countries that can be trusted. That’s the reason why the US is still the leader of the world.
For short periods of time, others without these qualities could assume temporary leadership of the world, due to some stresses and faults in geopolitics. China or Russia from time to time show glimpses of this promise. But very soon it dissipates, when one see through their deception and subterfuge. Do nations that ally with China on its BRI and other initiatives really trust it enough to want it to lead them forever? In the short term, they have to accept its largesse, but over time, they simply can’t be trusted.
But what about the USA? Is it also not cunning, you’d ask. Does it also not exploit? Sure, it does. But you also trust its processes (electoral, legislative, judicial, media) to enforce some checks and balances. Their democratic structures ensure that they won’t go totally berserk. Which other nation can see widespread, free, open protests against the wars they fight (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.), so much so that they have had to retreat from these places? Where else can you see protests against Israel so openly? Even with all the efforts to suppress anti-Israel and pro-Palestine protests, dissent is still thriving there. We might accuse it of hypocrisy and double-faced behaviour, but we also grudgingly accept that their openness, transparency, and democratic structures still give us the most hope in the long run. Even during the Israel-Iran war, people knew that the US is the only country that can bring an end to it. Its military power might have played a role in people having this faith in it, but somewhere it was also a belief that it can play that leadership role. That it is open to feedback. That it can course-correct.
It is this fact that the US is still very liberal, still very accepting of diversity, dissent and transparency, and that it has effective feedback loops that people can tap into, that still keeps it there at the leadership position. Can anybody dream of these qualities of a nation when it comes to China or Russia? Absolutely not. They aren’t liberal enough to accomodate dissent and diversity. Their democratic processes are a sham. Nobody can provide them any feedback. How do you then trust them? And if there is no trust, there is no long-term faith in abilities.
That’s why, the world for the foreseeable future will have only one leader. There might be some other weak poles from time to time, but there is simply no replacement for the US. Of course, there are other nations that are liberal, democratic, open and transparent, but none with comparable economic and military power. Both of these aspects are necessary but not sufficient by themselves to make a country the leader of the world. Together they are the most potent combination. China has economic and military power (maybe not equal to the US, but strong enough), but it still will never be looked at as a leader because of its untrustworthiness. It will be worth making deals with China, and using it every now and then. But China will always look at only its own interests. The US will too. However, atleast the US has internal processes that will make it more accountable to global rules and ethics, atleast to an extent that no other country can be held accountable to. Sometimes those processes might fail, but more often than not they’ll succeed, or the world will believe that they’ll succeed. And that’s enough for nations to cede leadership to the US.
And that’s why it is all the more important for the US to recognise what makes them the free world’s leader. They shouldn’t squander it away the way the Trump administration is going about its business. The US will obviously course-correct in 2028 - because of homeostasis. The current situation is not their natural resting state. They will go back to their equilibrium state. We can just hope the destruction till then is as low as possible.
This isn’t fawning over the US. It is an attempt to understand what qualities a leader nation possesses. It is recognising that despite all flaws, these qualities still make it a much more favourable option overall. And that there isn’t any other such nation.
In a sense, Francis Fukuyama’s end of history theory is right (although he didn’t mean it in the way that it is generally interpreted). The long arc of history will tend towards an equilibrium condition of liberal, open, transparent and democratic nations, atleast for nations that aspire to leadership. In that sense, we know what end of history looks like.