Five centuries of Western dominance are now giving way to a new world order. Political, economic, military, cultural, and ideological structures are already being reshuffled. If the coronavirus spreads far enough, it will merely accelerate this transition. In this essay, I aim to briefly outline three of the major intersections shaping our time. Part 1: Ideological competition / Part 2. ‘Glocal’ / Part 3. Social
Since 2006, Freedom House has reported a decline in freedom and democracy worldwide—that is, freedom and democracy as Westerners understand it. China plays a major legitimizing role in this trend. With its collectivist and paternalistic regime, it challenges the ideological benchmark of the West. No matter how much privacy, journalistic independence, or political participation is curtailed in Chinese society, no Western country is willing to pay the price of a direct confrontation. Too costly, too risky. Some banks are too big to fail; some countries are too big to franchise. A giant like China cannot be reshaped in the West’s image, and under Xi Jinping, it has abandoned any hesitation. China openly emphasizes the non-universal nature of Western democracy, and the West exposes its impotence by remaining silent.
At the same time, the failures of the “global democratic revolution” announced by Bush during the 2003 Iraq War, the continuous arms supplies from the ‘free world’ to autocratic regimes, and the exposure of Western hyper-liberalism during the financial crisis are all evident. And one group is keenly watching: the authoritarian leaders of the world. They interpret these developments as confirmation of their own ambitions.
Loss of economic power leads inevitably to a loss of ideological influence. Gradually, we are realizing the implications for the emerging world order. The “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” has become an alternative ideology alongside Western political thought. Every country is now forced to take a position. Neutrality is no longer an option. Each nation will occupy a place on a spectrum between Western individualism and Eastern collectivism, between American liberalism and Chinese socialism.
Even the West is beginning to feel drawn toward Eastern thinking. According to the OECD, by 2030, 60% of middle-class consumption will take place in Asia. Global products—movies, for example—will increasingly be tailored to Eastern cultural tastes. The West will not remain unaffected. And this is only the beginning of India’s rise. The more India asserts its independence from the US, the more its cultural and ideological influence will expand.
Now consider the pandemic amid this ideological competition. What captures our attention as we fight the virus: individual or collective interest? And which approach proves more effective: the individualistic West or the collectivist East? For authoritarian regimes, the crisis only reinforces confidence. The coronavirus has provided a perfect justification for submitting China’s 1.4 billion citizens even more fully to an omnipresent surveillance system.
The West, meanwhile, has suspended a dramatic range of freedoms to combat the virus. Citizens largely approve, trusting the measures are temporary. But how temporary is “temporary” if pandemics recur, and other dangers—climate change, cyber-attacks, nuclear risks, global terrorism—remain just as menacing? All these threats demand collective responses. Should we really restore all freedoms? Would it not be wise to adopt at least some of the digital technologies proving effective in Asia?
The coronavirus has intensified a question that has been pressing since China’s rise: how to strike the right balance between individual and collective interests, liberty and security. I expect Western countries to drift toward Eastern thinking. How far they move will depend on how convincingly they can articulate the value of individual liberty—and the responsibility it entails. Liberty requires less control, and less control entails risks. The more insecure our lives become, the greater our faith in freedom must be if we are not to surrender it in the name of security.