ow otherwise is to explain that communism, the greatest utopia of the
20th century was accepted by practically half of humanity? Or that the
Germans, Italians, Spanish and Japanese believed in fascism? Ideological
religions appeared on the historical scene as a result of the great
cataclysms of the 19th and 20th centuries but above all as a result of the
internationalisation of manufacturing forces and spiritual life. This
internationalisation of manufacturing gave birth to the illusion that the
world might be ordered on the lines of a ready-made political model on the
basis of dogma imposed by a group of people. Utopias become transformed into
mass credo only when the social conflicts and chaos have caused huge
destruction. Historically, mass poverty and mass violence have always caused
mass reactions which has prepared the ground for the appearance of coercive
utopias.
Ideological religions create different types of culture. In their
extreme forms these ideologies have given rise to the cult of personality
and the exaltation of leaders. Just as the ancient peoples prayed to Amon
Ra, Zeuss or Tangra in the 20th century they prayed to Hitler, Stalin, Mao
and Pol Pot. Of course, the cult of personality is not the only type of mass
utopia. The ideological religions also created the cult of the system
itself, the notion of the future, power and its structures. All this was the
imposition of freedom of thought. In certain countries and certain peoples
this type of mass awareness lead to accompanying forms of daily life, dress
and behaviour humiliating man in favour to ideology.
One of the most important consequences of the collapse of the Eastern
European totalitarian regimes was the destruction of the totalitarian type
of mass awareness. The collapse of the Berlin wall not only destroyed the
communist utopia but also created the opportunities for the entire
historical removal of ideological religions. Hitler, Stalin and Mao had
aspirations of disseminating their utopian notions over the entire world.
Fortunately this did not happen. The destruction of ideological religions
did not mean the ideological and spiritual division of the world not the
final removal of the danger of new coercive utopias. The removal of the iron
curtain does still not mean the final end to global inequality, economic
violence or the impossibility of the appearance of new ideological
religions. IN order to put a stop to such a danger many things will have to
change in this world.
Global awareness is radically different from the ideological religions
and the culture of the coercive utopia. It is developing as a result of the
new communications and the natural technological progress of humanity. It is
not a consequence of violence and coercion but of the modern technological
and cultural revolution. Its origin has to be looked for in the intermixing
of values and the criteria for the most advanced cultures of the world and
in their constant enrichment. The intermixing of different cultural values
leads to the formation of common thought processes with common foundations
which have began to develop rapidly since the falling of the iron curtain.
Global awareness is the common understanding of people for the common
problems of the world which cannot be resolved by one or a single group of
countries or by one or a group of peoples. This is the realisation of the
interdependence of the world and that the tragedy of one individual people
might lead to a tragedy for all. Global awareness is also a change in the
hierarchy of human values and in the extent to which common human conflicts
come to the fore. The enormous problems of pollution, the appearance of
holes in the ozone layer, global warming, the destruction of the rain
forests, AIDS, cancer and other mass illnesses of the 20th century, the
dangers posed by nuclear energy and numerous other problems are occupying
the thoughts of people around the world more and more and motivating their
actions.
Global awareness is reflected in the growing realisation of a larger
part of humanity that only human rights, individual freedom, freedom of
speech and the press and the gradual improvement in labour and living
conditions around the world can guarantee the preservation of the human
species. The most important thing is that in this way, gradually but
undeviatingly the common criteria for good and evil, justice and injustice,
progress and stagnation are being formed. This is the basic meaning of the
new theoretical and ideological synthesis which has been mentioned in an
earlier chapter.
Global awareness is developing on the basis of the cultural images and
standards of world significance and which do not belong to any one national
cultural school. Education and science, information and the media, trade and
finances, sport and tourism, food and daily life are a part of this growing
awareness. Today over 90% of the adult population of the world receive
information from more and more accessible and homogenous sources of culture.
The universal heroes, the universal film stars, the universal sports idols
are all symbols of one and the same phenomenon. Claudia Schiffer, Naomi
Cambell and Cindy Crawford are the greatest models at the end of the 20th
century because they are a reflection of the diversity of the ideal of
beauty and universal aesthetic standards. The travelling peoples have taken
their cuisine all over the world to Latin America, the USA, Russia and
Africa. Pele was the world football idol and the death of the racing driver
Aerton Senna was mourned all over the world. The reason is because we are
becoming citizens of one global village about which each subsequent
generation will know more than we do.
Today, global awareness is still just a trend but a trend which is
developing in the space of hours and minutes. The world corporations, the
global culture, mixed marriages, the "travelling peoples", universal
communications and values and common experiences are all an undisputed fact.
However, the trend towards the formation of a universal global awareness is
still at its very beginning. It has to cope with national and local
prejudices, ethnic enmity as well as social and economic inequality. This
trend towards the formation of the global awareness of humanity cannot be
stopped. It will take a long time and will most probably reach its peak in
the next century.
5. MULTICULTURE AND GLOBAL CULTURE
Multiculture or the combination of global, mixed and local cultures is
the main feature of the Fourth Civilisation.
T
he modern era was a time of cultural coercion. The violation,
plundering and export of huge amounts of works of art to Europe and America
was a symbol of colonialism. Fascism and Communism with their ideologies of
unification destroyed many cultural traditions and opened the way to the
violent imposition of monolithic cultural products. Imperialism in all its
manifestations bore within itself the idea of unification and multiculture
or, in other words, the domination of one culture and the transformation of
others into museum exhibits. One only has to compare the ancient cultures of
Benin and Nigeria and their artifacts exhibited in the British museum or the
culture of Bukhara and Samarkand preserved in the vaults of the Hermitage in
St.Petersburg with what has remained in the local museums.
The 20th century was a century of colonialism and imperialism, a
century of the greatest progress of humanity. It was at the same time a
century of the greatest destruction and oppression. One can but hope that
the New Civilisation will resolve the problems of cultural aggression.
However, this will be conditional upon the removal of media imperialism as a
threat to cultural imperialism. Only the future will tell whether the trends
of imperialism and cultural monopolism associated with the outgoing
civilisation or the global trends of the Fourth Civilisation will prevail. I
personally believe that historical progress and the global changes in the
world are taking us towards something different from cultural imperialism
and the dominance of one culture over others. There is, however, absolutely
no guarantee that we will turn the clock back.
If the trend towards imperialism persists and is not modernised, if the
media and cultural unification of the world takes place as a result of the
cultural domination of a number of countries via the trans-national
corporations then the forecasts of Samuel Huntington may very well come
true. The 21st century will be a century of conflicts between cultures and
civilisations and the slow and turbulent development of economic
polycentrism and associated cultural structures.
The cultural equivalent of economic polycentrism is multiculture.
Multiculture is the combination of many different cultures and their
intermixing and also the preservation and the development of international
and supra-national relations. The preservation of the cultures of small and
large nations will be preserved with the relevant legislation and economic
conditions. Multiculture means the rejection of media and cultural
imperialism. Together with economic and political polycentrism this is the
next most important feature of the Fourth Civilisation. Integration causes
either oppression or intermixing which is at the foundation of multiculture.
It is this intermixing stimulated by economic growth will be the main
cultural feature of the 21st century.
The most obvious manifestation of this process is in the area of
showbusiness, art and music, dance and the fine arts. The resolution of
religious conflicts, however, will be more difficult. The formation of a
global culture and the localisation of cultural ethnic communities will have
determinate roles in both economic and political processes. Globalisation
and autonomisation are already leading to the huge re-structuring of
cultural communities. Everything I have mentioned in this chapter: the
intermixing of cultures and global culture, the intermixing of ethnic groups
and the "travelling peoples", the formation of global awareness are features
of this process.
There are, of course, no absolute or automatic processes. I am speaking
only of a determining trend for the future. There will be processes and
events which will lead us forward but there will also be retrograde
influences. There will be a struggle for the establishment of new relations
between civilisations and the temporary victories of the protectors of the
past. The greatest task faced by the modern world is the removal of cultural
imperialism, the intermixing of religions and cultures with mutual
tolerance. The international media have great responsibility to avoid
becoming the advocates of new forms of oppression. However, they could also
become the proponents of a new spirit of multiculture. In practice this
means the protection and support of small and large cultures, a respect for
the daily life and traditions of smaller nations, the implementation of
policies of mutual adaptation of different cultures and, importantly, the
rejection of totalitarian cultural forms.
The last of these steps is of particular importance. As can be seen in
table 14, there are in the world today five basic religions. Each of these
religions and the cultures which are associated have their own geographical
and historical roots and form part of the world's cultural and ideological
treasury. However, at the same time each of these religions has its sects
and branches which would like to transform their religion into one of world
dominance and demonstrate intolerance and irreconcilability to
non-believers. This is as true for Christians as it is of the Muslims. The
gentle nature and lack of aggression inherent in Orthodox Christianity,
perhaps, make it the only exception. After the collapse of the two-bloc
system of the world the ideological vacuums were filled by religions and a
semi-overt struggle for domination began. A number of evangelical Christian
sects decided that the time was ripe for them to impose their own belief on
the world with little concern for the fact that they were depriving many
people of their individual freedom and turing them into obedient
instruments.
Table 14
Region
Christianity %
Islam %
Hinduizum %
Buddhism %
Judaism %
Africa
East Asia
South Azia [62]
Europe
Latin America
North America
Oceania
Fm. USSR[63]
236300
22300
125900
420300
392200
227200
21500
102200
15,3
1,4
8,1
27,2
25,3
14,7
1,4
6,6
215800
22300
534900
9200
600
2600
100
31500
26,4
2,7
65,5
1,1
0,1
0,3
*
3,9
130
*
644000
600
600
700
300
*
0,2
*
99,5
0,1
0,1
0,1
*
*
*
143400
150900
200
500
200
*
400
*
48,5
51,0
0,1
0,2
0,1
*
0,1
300
*
3900
1500
1000
7900
100
3100
1,7
*
21,9
8,4
5,6
44,4
0,6
17,4
Total
1548500
100
817000
100
647500
100
295600
100
71800
100
*100000, 0,1% Source: The World Christian Encyclopedia, 1985.
Islamic fundamentalism has also displayed public intolerance to
non-believers and the representatives of other countries. The murders in
Egypt and the execution of foreign hostages in Algeria and international
Islamic terrorism are examples of intolerance towards the traditions of
others. It is extremely important that such features of modern religions be
overcome. This will not be resolved by force but with the efforts of the
world community and states and their politicians and government to achieve
reconciliation. If modern Islam turns towards modernism combining its
profound cultural heritage with the achievements of the modern world it will
become part of the New tolerant Civilisation. The other alterative is
isolationism and the division of global cultures and traditions. During the
middle ages in Asia Minor and other places in the world Islam was the
embodiment of progress and was a source of innovation and new philosophical
and cultural trends, in the modern world it could assume a similar role.
The opening-up of cultures and religions to each other is a slow and
clearly painful process. It requires people to live democratically and in
mutual tolerance particularly of those nations which live in the border
areas between two geographically and religiously different zones. One
shining example is that of the Israelis and the Palestinians who since the
historical events of 1993 have been attempting to find a new
non-confrontational model for the resolution of their conflict. The
Bulgarians, Greeks and the Turks also have a vital role to play living as
they do on two sides of the divide between Christianity and Islam. There is
much dependent on the way in which these countries will resolve the problems
of their ethnic minorities and international relations. Cultures and
religions have to be sensitive to other cultures and religions. This does
not only mean avoiding conflict but actively assisting and complementing
each other. Only in this way will the principle of multiculture be able to
throw off the burden of the outgoing world of imperialism.
Perhaps, the ideal model of multiculture and tolerance for others can
be seen on the Hawaiian islands. Japanese and Polynesians, Americans and
Koreans, Buddhists and evangelists live in harmony and peace on such a small
piece of land. After so many centuries of inter-cultural conflicts the
nations which make up the multicultural communities of the USA have achieved
an impressive state of tolerance and unity.
I am convinced that the idea of global multiculture is not at odds with
the universal processes of globalisation. Clearly the structures of world
culture and the structure of the New Civilisation and will contain the
following mutually influential components:
-- the emerging global culture is being developed and disseminated via
the world media and is becoming distinct from the culture of the large
nations which have done much to create it;
-- the culture of the large nations which together with the
establishment of the principles of political polycentrism and multiculture
will gradually lose their ability to influence and erase the culture of
smaller nations;
-- the culture of the smaller independent nations which require more
specific forms of protection and whose preservation and development is one
of the most important issues in the modern world;
-- intermixed or border cultures as a product of the mutual influence
of individual nations.
There is little doubt that during the 19th century and for the entire
period of the 20th, there was a great deal of inequity between cultures and
religions. This was a result of colonial oppression, of two world and
hundreds of local conflicts and the violent attempts to impose cultural
domination. After the collapse of the two world systems humanity has every
opportunity to stop this trend and open up the way for multiculture as the
direct alternative to cultural imperialism. A balancing element to this is
the undoubted development of global cultural values which will take their
inspiration from the larger countries and nations who control the world
communications. The responsibility of the owners of global communications
and the governments of the countries in which they function will be to
ensure the development of the smaller countries and their integration into
global culture exchange.
There is no doubt that sooner or later this process will require strict
forms of global regulation, less passive and powerless than perhaps that of
UNESCO but, nevertheless, similar in terms of its profound and multi-lateral
experience. Many small nations and languages have already disappeared and
this process will, no doubt, continue for a number of years to come.
Countries living in isolation can not but be affected by this process.
Cultural autonomy is closely associated with weak economies. Weak economies
permit a low level of economic integration and lead to conflicts rather than
cooperation between ethnic groups and culture. This is an almost universal
truth and can be seen in Iran and Iraq, Israel and Turkey, India, the
Balkans and the Caususus.
The opposite example of cultural intermixing and emergent multiculture
can be seen in those regions of the world where people have realised the
senselessness of cultural assimilation and the value of peaceful cultural
co-existence. The USA, Australia, Europe, Cuba, Brazil and a number of other
countries in the world are fine examples of the intermixing and cooperation
of different races and cultures.
Chapter Ten
THE NEW POLITICAL ORDER
1. THE TWILIGHT OF THE SUPERPOWERS
The Fourth Civilisation will change the global political order. This is
a logical consequence of the end of the cold war the appearance of new world
economic powers and the globalisation of finances and the stock markets.
T
he political history of humanity has developed through a number of
large cycles. The First Civilisation was a time of great empires. Later,
over a period of about 10 centuries, from the 4th to the 13th century, the
world was witness to the collapse of empire and the formation of small
unstable states and the large scale migration of tribes and entire nations.
The Third Civilisation saw the development of nation states and new imperial
aspirations which reached their height with the creation and the struggle
between the two world systems. The New Civilisation will to a certain extent
once more return us to the features of the Second Civilisation but to a
qualitatively new cultural and economic level of development as well
migration of large groups of people the collapse of great blocs and empires,
the redrawing of national borders. Is this part of a logical cycle or is it
merely a temporary political cataclysm?
I believe that the cycle of predominant political concentration has
already come to an end and we are entering a new cycle of the domination of
global culture and the parallel development of local features. This, of
course, does not mean that globalisation will come to a halt but that the
parallel processes of globalisation and localisation will exert a strong
influence on current state and political formations. The 19th century left
us a legacy of the concept of the Great Powers. The 20th century brought in
the concept of the two superpowers: the USA and the USSR.
With the collapse of the USSR the world found itself faced with two
possible alternatives: either to develop monocentrically with the domination
of the single remaining superpower, the USA, or to search for a new
geo-political form. A number of researchers, politicians and journalists
seemed to be in favour of the idea of the exclusive role of the USA as the
superpower to lead the world into the 21st century. Indeed, during the first
years after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union this seemed
possible. Without its basic enemy, the USA was transformed into the most
powerful economic and political force in the world. After 1989--1990 the USA
seemed to be the only power capable of resolving a number of world conflicts
and stabilising the world order. The war in the Persian Gulf in 1991, the
intervention in Somalia, the positive role of the USA in the peace process
in Bosnia in 1995 and the resolution of the problem of Palestinian autonomy
served to strengthen this conviction.
The USA are still the strongest nation state in the world but,
nevertheless, I believe that the time of the superpowers has passed. The
Fourth Civilisation will finally reject them and even now, during the
transition between eras, there are already noticeable trends and processes
which support this.
The gradual twilight of the superpowers is for a number of reasons a
general process. It is consequence of the trend towards global balance and
the expected balancing of the global market. It is also due to a number of
reasons associated with the cyclic development of geopolitical structures. I
mentioned earlier that the economic development of the world has become
polycentric. Japan, South Korea, more recently China and a number of other
Asian economic powers have achieved significant economic strength. European
integration has undoubtedly raised the importance of the European Economic
Community in the world division of labour. The Latin American markets have
become more attractive for investments. The globalisation of the economy has
allowed for many more countries to accumulate economic strength and
self-confidence. During the cold war and up to 1989 the appearance of new
powerful and independent economic centres was of secondary importance.
Military power and nuclear weapons were an undisputed factor in the
determination of political power. This trend persisted for the entire period
of the 20th century. In the 1960's and the 1970's there was a growing
conviction that there would in fact be no victor after a nuclear conflict.
Indeed, after the collapse of the Berlin wall there are still people who
continue to wag their sabres and claim that they can achieve their aims
through armed conflict. Nevertheless, things do seem to have changed. The
emergence of new technology and new economic opportunities have come to the
fore.
This has reduced, at least for the time being, the role of Russia in
world politics leaving it to ponder the questions of its domestic political
and economic restructuring. For the same reasons, the USA now finds itself
in a completely new situation.
The vacuum which was formed after the collapse of COMECON and the
Warsaw Pact (1990--1991) has begun to be filled not only by the USA but
Germany, France, Japan and the European community as a whole. Although this
process is rather veiled and timid it will continue in the future. Germany
demonstrated its new-found self-confidence with its independent position on
Bosnia. The nuclear tests carried out by France in the Pacific in 1995 were
more significant from a political point of view than scientific. Similar
ideas can be read into the applications by Japan and Germany to join the
Security Council.
The other issue which has always seemed to dog the USA and which will
undermine its potential as the only superpower in the world is the issue of
economic expenditure. Since the Second World War the USA has run up a huge
armaments bill which has lead to a colossal increase in its foreign debt.
Today the world's financial systems is under an enormous strain because of
the constant increase in American borrowings, especially in the 1980's
(table 15). In the 1970's and 1980's, however, this seemed not to be such a
serious matter. The USA at the time was the leading figure in the Brenton
Woods system and the dollar was the only reserve currency in the world and
the US was able with some ease to compensate for the debts it had
accumulated. In the 1980's the USA was paying 250--300 billion dollars in
interest alone on its foreign debt. The majority of global economists
believe that if this trend persists for much longer the American economy
will begin to slide and the dollar will lose its position to the yen and the
German mark.
Table 15
Federal debt of the USA
Year
1900
1920
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
1994
Billion Dollars
Per head of population (USD)
Interest paid on debt (bill)
% of federal income
1,2
16,6
-
-
21,2
228
-
-
256,1
1688
5,7
13,4
284,1
1572
9,2
10,0
370,1
1814
19,3
9,9
907,7
3985
74,9
12,7
3233
13000
264,8
21,1
4064
846
292,3
21,1
4692
026
296,3
80,3
Source: Bureau of Public Debt, US Dept of Treasury.
There is little doubt that the USA and Russia will progressively have
to reduce their military expenses which are the main causes for budget
deficits and huge debt. IN 1994 the USA spent 280.6 billion dollars on
defence which more than all the other countries of the world put together
with the exception of Russia. US military expenditure was 9 times greater
than that of Germany (35 billion dollars); 9 times that of France (34
billion); 7 times that of the UK (41 billion); 50 times that of Japan (5.9
billion dollars); 100 times that of China (2.7 billion)[64]. I
have never seen accurate or proven figures for Russia but I believe that up
to 1990 they were similar to the US. There is no economy in the world which
can compensate for such expenditure and bear the burden of competition in
the global market. For this reason the role of the USA and Russia as the two
superpowers has begun to subside. Superpower tension might reappear in the
world only if the two-bloc system is revived. There is, however, little
likelihood of this since global financial markets are so interlinked and
interdependent and for all the other reasons associated with the emergent
New Civilisation.
This leads on to the other question of where the new centre of economic
and political power will develop and who will take on the roles and
responsibilities of the USA and Russia. Russia clearly needs time to
reorganise its economy and bring it in line with the needs of the market.
However, even if this were to take place within the shortest possible period
of time -- 10--15 years, it would not be able to assume the role of a
superpower, nor would it want to. On the other hand Jacques Atalie and other
writers have forecast that "economic power is moving away from America
towards Europe and the Pacific".[65] I believe that it would more
accurate to make another conclusion. It is true that during the Third
Civilisation the Euroatlantic powers made great progress in their domination
of the world at the beginning of the processes of globalisation. It is also
true that after the 1960's the Asian economic powers began gradually to free
themselves from the protectionism of the USA and Europe and they will play a
very active global role in the coming 21st century.
This fact, however, is insufficient to support the claim that "economic
power is moving away from America towards Europe and the Pacific". It is
more likely that there will be a period of levelling and mutual balance
between the Japanese, American and European economies. This is possibly the
most effective solution. Of course, this is also associated with the
reduction in the responsibilities and burdens of the USA and the involvement
of other countries such as Japan. The superpowers will disappear but it will
not necessarily follow that the USA will preserve their role as one of the
world's main political and economic centres. The world can no longer benefit
from American domination or its downfall. In the same way the world could
have done without the political and military conflicts within the former
USSR.
2. FROM IMPERIALISM TO POLYCENTRISM
"The old geopolitical order has left the stage and a new world order
has been born".
Jacques Atalie
T
he central issue is what will replace the two-bloc world order based on
the dominance of the superpowers. Other similar periods of transition in
history have lead to geopolitical chaos, conflicts, wars and huge loss of
human life. The first years after the overthrow of the totalitarian regime
in Eastern Europe seemed to bear out this sad truth. Today the dangers have
not yet passed and seem to confound those who are optimistic of a new world
order.
There is no single or single group of powers capable of establishing
this order. It will have to be created through a amalgamation of local and
regional resolutions and the renunciation of ideas associated with the
domination of one country or nation. This is the main feature of the New
Civilisation. During the entire period of the outgoing civilisation monarchs
were engaged in struggles for power, conquering and losing territory and
making plans on how to expand their dominions. In the 19th and 20th
centuries the idea of world domination arose and the revival of the huge
empires of Caesar of Fredrich Barbarossa. The greatest empires of the Third
Civilisation were the two political and military blocs which dominated the
world for 50 years.
I believe that the era of imperialism will be replaced by a new world
order based on the principle of polycentrism, the alternative to imperialism
and monocentrism. This principle is a rejection of the monopolism and
imperial aspirations of any single nation or ideology. Polycentrism is that
level of international relations which is the most concomitant for the
opening up of the world and its globalisation.
Polycentrism will not appear overnight. However, I am more than
convinced that it is inevitable and part of the logic of historical
development. The alternative is new confrontation, new violence with the
accompanying threats of thermo-nuclear conflict. There are two basic
conditions without which polycentrism and the natural competition between
nations and countries cannot develop:
Firstly, the inevitable, albeit gradual, disappearance of the super
power phenomenon.
Secondly, the evolutionary nature of the development of polycentrism as
a system of international relations. The natural replacement of the bi-polar
model with polycentric structures will pass through a number of phases, each
of which will take differing lengths of time.
We are already experiencing the first of these phases. The world is
undergoing transition from the bi-polar model of confrontation to a
multi-polar world. It is quite realistic to assume that in the next ten or
so years we will pass into a transitory phase of a tri-polar world. This
tri-polar world began to emerge based on the existing framework of the
bi-polar world as early as the 1970's and 1980's. This model is based on the
USA and a number of states which gravitate around it, Europe and the Far
East lead by Japan. These three economically integrated poles have been
developing gradually over the past 25--30 years. They are economically very
compact and consist mainly of the economic interdependence of the individual
countries. At the same time these three economic centres are strongly
dependent on and open to each other creating one of the greatest
opportunities for the peaceful development of the world. The tri-polar world
is the closest alternative to the bi-polar world but is not an easy way out
of the current crisis. The tri-polar model is to a large extent conditional
on the development of common global trends.
At the very beginning of the 21st century both Russia and China will
aspire to become involved in the three large centres of economic power. All
the most sensible politicians in the world believe that without Russia and
China the world cannot develop successfully. This has been a clear feature
of US policy during the Clinton administration. During the next 20--25 years
we shall no doubt witness the development of a five-six-polar world in which
the three main centres will be joined by a number of other new ones. China's
rapid economic development and Russia's enormous resources of raw materials
and its strategical capability will exert significant influence on this
process. The triangular community of the USA, EC and Japan has quite quickly
replaced the bi-polar model the development of a multi-polar model will take
at least 15--20 years. Russia will need time to stabilise its economy and
China will need to consolidate its reform process and balance out its levels
of development.
There is, however, a question of principle here. Will this not take us
back to the beginning of the modern age, to a situation where five or six
great powers dominated the world creating a series of conflicts which may
develop into regional or even world wars? May this not also lead to the
grouping of these powers into two or three political and military groups and
a repeat of the Third Civilisation? It is here that the difference between
the outgoing civilisation and the new era lies. The new powers will not
arise only on one continent, Europe or America. They will develop in all the
continents and within the framework of a single global economy.
I, therefore, believe that the second phase, the transition to a new
world order will be characterised by the gradual transition from five or six
centres to a multi-polar or polycentric world structure. Even at the
beginning of the transition period countries like Brazil, India, Australia,
South Africa and others will increase their geo-political roles. They will
be balanced between the other "great powers" and with their geographical
position and size and increased economic potential they will gradually begin
to assume greater geo-political significance. When speaking of the
polycentric structure of the world, I am not concerned only with the
political aspect but also with the economic and cultural sides of the issue.
At the same time global integration will take place simultaneously in all
countries but will lead to the creation of a number of regional formations.
I also believe that we can expect that the poles of the new world
structure will be defined via the development of a number of economically
integrated blocs which of necessity will be open to one another and will
autonomous units within an expanding integral entity. L.Thorou forecast that
the 21st century would be a century of "quasi-commercial blocs applying
managed trade". This is true to a certain extent but only in the initial
stages since I believe that with the emergence of polycentrism the
autonomous economic regions and commercial blocs will gradually become very
interwoven and to lose their primary borders.
The principle of polycentrism is at the heart of the new world order.
However, these are not the same world centres which existed in the 13th and
the 19th centuries and whose monarchs and presidents went to war every
10--15 years to re-distribute their dominions. They will not be the same
centres which colonised the entire world and imposed their will on other
nations. Polycentrism is the principle of balance between the world's
powers, the umbrella under which new centres will develop and a bridge
leading to a more complete integration of the world. The essence of the
Fourth Civilisation is in the gradual formation of this new world order.
3. THE FATE OF THE NATION STATE
Do not be in a hurry to destroy the nation state. It will not die
suddenly of cardiac arrest but will gradually fade away...
T
he functions and the borders of the nation state depend directly on the
economic maturity of societies. Historically the nation state is a
transitory category. It appeared when nations were being created and the
economic conditions of life were imposing certain certain types of
government and regulation. There were different versions of statism and
state government during the First Civilisation and the Second Civilisation,
more commonly know as the Middle Ages. Nation states, however, are a typical
feature of the Third Civilisation.
The reduction in their role and changes in their functions is a result
of the same phenomena which created them. The globalisation of modern
economies and culture, the media invasions, transnational corporations and
everything else which has been mentioned in other parts of the book are
leading to changes in the borders and the essence of the concept of nation
state as well as in the structure of government and economies. For a number
of decades the inhabitants of the most developed nations have become
growingly aware that the governments for which they may have voted are not
the only centres of power and that the promises of politicians seem to have
little in common with realities and that the implementation of policies
depends on other factors and phenomena.
P.Drucker frequently speaks of a new pluralism. In this he is
absolutely correct. Pluralism does not mean competition between parties and
their leaders. It is a very diverse pluralism of economic, government,
cultural and lobby groups. What is even more significant is that this new
pluralism is becoming more and more international. Corporations and
political parties, foundations and association, information groups and
trans-national media have transformed pluralism in to an universal concept
and the nation state into an annoying but not insurmountable barrier.
It is quite evident that as society develops governmental restrictions
decline along with the significance of national boundaries. For this reason
open societie