The Dominant Role of Advanced Powers in Global Affairs is Gradually Fading Away
There has been a growing debate on the impact that rising powers may or may not be having on the contemporary global political as well as economic governance. Via studies of various regions including China, Brazil, India along with additional significant developing nations under their respective regions like South Africa and Turkey, a question can be raised on the degree to which challenge that rising powers pose to the global governance is likely to result in an increase in social justice and democracy for the most of the people of the world (Diamond 2015).
By speaking to the above question, this paper explicitly seeks to raise the vaster normative questions of implications of such emergent redistribution of political and economic power for the legitimacy along with sustainability of the evolving 21st century system of international political as well as economic governance. The queries of democracy, legitimacy alongside social justice remain primarily neglected or under-stressed in various prevailing studies, and the main objective of this analysis is to showcase the serious consideration of the above questions offers significant insights into sustainability of evolving global political economy along with newfangled forms of the global governance (Giddens 2013).
The dominant that advanced and established powers have traditional held in the global affairs is gradually fading away. One of the single most matters prominently affected by such a process is the democracy promotion. This is an area whereby the USA and Europe had traditionally dominated in terms of policy and academic levels. Whereas several emerging democracies like India and Brazil-might appear, from the perspective of Western, to be ideal candidates to help the United States along with Europe in the promotion of democracy in the post-Western World, evolving powers like the mentioned above remain hesitant to adopt such an idea. This begs the question as to what such reluctance would mean to the forthcoming democracy promotion following the declining influence of the USA and Europe (Gray and Murphy 2013).
The cohort of such nation with powers to make a change globally, for better or worse, is altering. The decision-making elite of the world is increasingly becoming less Western, with reduced shared interests, and additionally ideologically diversity. Evolving powers are commencing to play an essential role in the global debate. This establishes the inevitable need to comprehend their perspectives. However, on various significant questions of the global affairs, there is uncertainty relating to the ideas as well as viewpoints which inform the evolving powers’ agendum as they seek increased visibility as well as capacity to dictate the global agenda (Guarin and Knorringa 2014).
The Need to Comprehend Perspectives of Emerging Powers
The analysis focuses on India and Brazil cases to answer the above question. The democratic Western governments as well as organizations always spend billions of dollars per year on democracy-associated projects, hence converting them into dominant parties in field of the promotion of democracy (Jervis and Art 2015). Nevertheless, an acknowledgeable shift of power is taking shape towards nations which are increasingly reluctant when it revolves around systematic democracy promotion and hence global governance. A question posed is whether India and Brazil have promoted democracy in the previous years. Brazil and India can be used in this paper to examine the promotion of democracy and better characterize arguments with respect to critiques.
Brazil contributes to more than half of wealth, territory, population as well as military budget of America. This is suggestive that Brazil is comparatively more powerful in the region compared to China, Germany and India in their corresponding neighborhoods. Nevertheless, despite such dominance stance, Brazil shields away from the effective intervention in the internal affairs of its neighbors before 1990s. The preservation of the sovereignty nationally as well as non-intervention by Brazil has stood as key pillars of its foreign policy.
Hence, any effort to promote as well as defend self-determination besides rights of human overseas-a dedication that its 1989’ constitution avails remains in conflict with the ideology of the non-intervention (Kahler 2013). The tension emerging from such two conflicting vision-honoring sovereignty nationally along with embracing an increasingly assertive pro-democracy position, especially in its region-remains a single most significant dilemma in the foreign policy of Brazil of the previous 2 decades.
Unknown among many people, Brazil has over the 2 decades systematically established democratic references along with clauses into charters, declarations as well as protocols of sub-regional institutions where it is a member. The significance of democracy in the constitution as well as activities of Mercosur and Unasul can to a greater degree be traced back to the activism of Brazil. It has as well sought to make sure that protection of democratic rule be integrated into interventionism, merging principle of non-intervention with non-indifference. Despite being contested, the above policy term denotes how Brazil thinks about sovereignty’s evolution.
When explicating its opposition to the proposal of US for crafting a mechanism with the Democratic charter of OAS to allow the cohort to intervene in countries to foster as well as strengthen democracy, Amorim Celo made an argument for dialogue instead of intervention, going further to add that democracy can never be imposed but rather derived from dialogue (Kliman 2014). Brazil, therefore, positions itself as the option as well increasingly moderate democracy defender in hemisphere than the United States, besides one which persistently calibrates its interest in the defense of democracy with its ideology of non-intervention.
Case Study: India and Brazil
Nevertheless, there remains critical voices. Summing up the foreign policy of Brazil over the previous 2 decades, an argument has been made by Sean Burges that Brazil has never conducted itself consistently in backing up democratic idea enforcement, besides that decisive move to preserve democracy has remained ‘tepid’. With respect to influence wielding in backing up democracy in foreign nations, Ted Piccone has argued that Brazil has remained ambivalent as well as usually unpredictable (Kliman 2014).
The above two examinations have been made prior to the assertive position of Brazil in Paraguay in the year 2012. Nonetheless, despite this approach, the democracy promotion phrase is never utilized by the policymakers of Brazil or academic when denoting the Paraguay policy of Brazil. In the similar level, Brazil does not promote activities relative to such of large US as well as European NGOs, whose activities are ranging from the development of political parties, monitoring elections, independent media support as well as journalist, building capacity for institutions of state as well judges, legislators and civic group training.
The above brief examination suggests that Brazil is increasingly assertive in the region its region, and is more than willing to intervene in case of political crises posing threats to democracy. It is most probably to intervene during the constitutional crisis as well as raptures politically, but less probably to do so in cases of procedural matters in the course of elections which could influence outcome-as was witnessed during the re-election of Hugo Chevez in the year 2012, when various commentators criticized the decision by Brazil not to mount pressure on Venezuelan administration to guarantee elections. But, despite this differentiation, it appears precise that consolidation of democracy in this region has shifted into the single most fundamental goals of foreign policy of Brazil (Kupchan 2013).
Such a development has to be seen in the setting of attempts of Brazil to consolidate its regional leadership. Whereas Brazil often act quickly in the face of political instability, it remains far extensively hesitant to intervene in situations in which democracy agonizes from procedural challenges-like the one witnessed in Venezuela whereby President Chevez utilized state apparatus to promote his private campaigns, culminating to uneven playing field amid him and his opponent, Capriles Henrique.
The hesitance of Brazil to intervene in such a situation can be explicated by categorically stating that it does not afffect the economic interest of Brazil in the region. The promotion of democracy can hence be perceived not essentially as an end in itself, but rather as a significant aspect of the strategy of Brazil to strengthen its surging economic presence in this region. Likewise the USA’s promotion of democracy is substantially aligned to the national interests of Brazil as an evolving power.
Brazil’s Foreign Policy on Democracy Promotion
Taking into account the enormous challenges facing India domestically, it remains a significant democratic success narrative. But the nation, democratic since gaining of independence in 1947, the country has traditionally been hesitant to promote democracy actively in foreign countries but continue to put more value on the preserving its sovereignty at the expense of promoting democracy. Indian foreign policy stance like Brazil, features the realistic strand as well as an idealist one that stand in ongoing tension.
The promotion of democracy was made impossible by its decision not to align itself and relative proximity to USSR in course of Cold War especially due to the notion being firmly linked to promotion entailed a connotation of intervention which was anathema to its foreign policy viewpoint (Nadvi 2014). A profound influence on its foreign policy perception resulted from the intervention of the US in Chile in 1973.
In various cases, India has remained hesitant to promote democracy. India has for more than a decade adhered to constructive engagement policy with the military junta of Burma whereby it has never criticized the human rights abuses of the regime even as India hosted enormous numbers of refugees of Burma along with Burmese political exiles on its land. Moreover, the New Delhi never took much of a position on the Burmese 2007’s political turmoil that was seen as a great disappointment to pro-democracy activists (Öni? and Kutlay 2017).
It has been argued by Raja Moham that democracy as priority in politics has enormously been missing from the foreign policy of India, a matter that is partially explicated by the fact that it is enclosed by unstable as well as usually autocratic regimes. Delhi further lacks choice but to engage with its corresponding autocratic neighbors, and it stays skeptical that external variables might demoralize its broadest neighbor, China. The increasing Chinese presence stood further as one of the primary reason the New Delhi was hesitant to openly condemn military regime in the Rangoon based on the 2007 Saffron Revolution suppression. The analyst of India’s policy views its regional geopolitical setting as single most chief reasons it never promote democracy-offering a stark comparison to Brazil, that faces extensively less regional restrains.
To sum up, it is worth arguing that as opposed to Brazil whereby defending democracy is aligned with project of regional hegemony of Brazil by reaping its strategic as well as economic interests, similar logic is inapplicable to India in South Asia region. Despite the dominant size alongside its capacity theoretically to exert impact over its corresponding neighbors’ regime kind, democracy promotion might prospectively destabilize India’s still substantially non-democratic region. As compared to South America where democracy has already taken hold, the task of Brazil to barely keep its corresponding neighbor from backsliding remains far effortless as well as safer compared to challenges facing India to assist its corresponding neighbors to democratize (Ottaway 2013).
India’s Hesitance to Promote Democracy
The rising democracies have remained hesitant to the promotion of democracy and good global governance. They have never acknowledged that their democracies stand up for the others’ freedom as a global governance. Brazil has converted to a quite a reliable proponent of democracy in its region. India, however, has been extensively more cautious, but acted in certain rare cases like the Maldives coup detat (Steinfeld 2013).
Therefore, instead of a clash amid nations that back democracy promotion as well as those outright rejecting it, an increasingly nuanced along complicated debate is evolving relating to when as well as how democracy promotion remains legitimate, and how it needs to take course. It remains likely that in the setting of the redistribution of global power, the United States and European subjects will have difficulties to control the global debate regarding promotion of democracy.
The rising powers remain like India and Brazil (government and civil society) are extensively less engaged in the process if democracy promotion unlike declining global powers like US and Europe. Neither Brazil nor India has established capacity for allocating democracy aid workers globally unlike USA and Europe since the former do not use democracy-linked conditionality’s in their corresponding aid programmes (Stuenkel 2013).
Democracy promotion appears to be Indian and Brazilian liberal narrative rather than significant aspect their mission. By nature, neither India nor Brazil has established any type of mission civilisatrice as well as interest in enlarging their given ideological narrative crossways the world, and they remain unlikely to uplift their individual success into the ideological framework for their respective foreign policy (Stephen 2014).
Conclusion
As it has been made precise in the analysis, a realist approach can best account for the rising democracies behavior. Brazil and India will promote democracy so long as is aligned with their corresponding entire strategic along with economic interests and when they are willing to embrace promotion of democracy as a mechanism for legitimizing their growing influence (Armijo and Roberts 2014).
Whereas India’s foreign policy goalmouth of maintaining stability in the region will be endangered by promotion of democracy, it is aligned increasingly with national interest of Brazil as regional hegemon. Nevertheless, rising powers (India and Brazil) substantially vary from established participants (Europe and USA) as they seldom validate their democracy-associated activities in setting of bigger liberal narrative usually employed by US and Europe policymakers.
References
Armijo, L.E. and Roberts, C., 2014. The emerging powers and global governance: why the BRICS matter. Handbook of emerging economies, pp.503-520.
Cooper, A.F. and Pouliot, V., 2015. How much is global governance changing? The G20 as international practice. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), pp.334-350.
Diamond, L., 2015. Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), pp.141-155.
Giddens, A., 2013. The third way: The renewal of social democracy. John Wiley & Sons.
Gray, K. and Murphy, C.N. eds., 2015. Rising powers and the future of global governance. Routledge.
Gray, K. and Murphy, C.N., 2013. Introduction: rising powers and the future of global governance. Third World Quarterly, 34(2), pp.183-193.
Guarin, A. and Knorringa, P., 2014. New middle-class consumers in rising powers: Responsible consumption and private standards. Oxford development studies, 42(2), pp.151-171.
Jervis, R. and Art, R.J., 2015. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. Pearson Higher Ed.
Kahler, M., 2013. Rising powers and global governance: negotiating change in a resilient status quo. International Affairs, 89(3), pp.711-729.
Kliman, D.M., 2014. Fateful transitions: how democracies manage rising powers, from the eve of World War I to China’s ascendance. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kupchan, C.A., 2013. Response to Edward S. Steinfeld’s review of No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn. Perspectives on Politics, 11(03), pp.891-892.
Nadvi, K., 2014. “Rising Powers” and labour and environmental standards. Oxford Development Studies, 42(2), pp.137-150.
Öni?, Z. and Kutlay, M., 2017. The dynamics of emerging middle-power influence in regional and global governance: the paradoxical case of Turkey. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(2), pp.164-183.
Ottaway, M., 2013. Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment.
Steinfeld, E.S., 2013. Response to Charles A. Kupchan’s review of Playing Our Game: Why China’s Rise Doesn’t Threaten the West. Perspectives on Politics, 11(03), pp.888-889.
Stephen, M.D., 2014. Rising powers, global capitalism and liberal global governance: A historical materialist account of the BRICs challenge. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), pp.912-938.
Stuenkel, O., 2013. Rising Powers and the Future of Democracy Promotion: the case of Brazil and India. Third World Quarterly, 34(2), pp.339-355.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
