Liberal Order: Contradiction, Consolidation, and Limitation

This academic essay was written for a school paper assignment in grad school. 

Over the past years, the hurdles to peaceful global politics have continued to arise in different forms. From local to global issues, these challenges raise concern on the legitimacy and relevance of liberalism. In their “The Resilient Order”, Deudney and Ikenberry illustrated these issues and demonstrated how resilient liberalism is in the face of rising threats. The authors contend that the durability of liberalism will prevail with the help of more liberalism and setting of certain conditions. However, despite the remarkable evidence and organization of the article, it is necessary that its assumptions and presuppositions be subjected to careful review using the lens of other compelling theories.

         The article started by explaining how important liberalism is in achieving security, peace, and progress. It enumerated the various criticisms and incorrect portrayals against liberalism which were defended earnestly. According to the authors, liberalism is a pragmatic and rational ideology that recognizes the reality of human interest, in contrast to its presentation as utopian and overly optimistic. They argued that the arrangements of liberalism are not mere idealism but better alternatives to temper and realize human interests. The adverse impact of free markets was also mentioned and responded. In response to the problems brought about by negative social consequences of free markets, more liberal institutional reforms are needed. In other words, fostering and propagating liberal values are instrumental to address inequality and negative political outcomes.

         To further defend the success of liberalism, the authors cited how liberal values were fortified after major crises in the past. For instance, the creation of agreements and the consolidation of social democracy were liberal victories that followed after serious historical crises.

         Deudney and Ikenberry asserted that liberalism is a resilient order due to increasing interdependence, tolerance and cooperation with illiberal regimes, and the resurgence of ideological competition. The complex problems of the world demand interdependence among actors to collectively explore solutions. Take the looming menace of climate change, for example. In order to prepare and mitigate its effects, actors have to agree on and enforce conventions that will bring benefits to all. Interdependence also manifests in the collective pursuit of the improvement of human condition thru innovations and technological advancements. Evidently, the world is marked with global interdependence.

         The inclusive and cooperative values of liberalism will likewise facilitate the persistence of liberal international order. Notably, the composition of international institutions is not limited to liberal states. This accommodation of non-liberal democracies further strengthens the liberal global politics. To illustrate, China and Russia and other autocracies are highly active and integrated into resolving issues (e.g. deteriorating health, environmental destruction) that endanger the globe. International cooperation does not prescribe its stakeholders to subscribe to liberalism and/or democracy. Political will and commitment to partake in a collective effort against common threat supersede political regime.

         Another argument that supports the resilient liberal order is the return of ideological competition. It can be remembered in the past that liberalism outstrips autocratic political regimes in many countries. In fact, these illiberal rivalries even bolstered the organization of liberal democratic order. Hence, the potential threat of communist China in the present time entails an opportunity for liberalism to expand and prevail.

         While these points in favor of liberalism are unequivocal, the need to challenge its assumptions should be undertaken by every political scholar who wishes to make sense of the world. Expectedly, realism and constructivism have interesting counterarguments against liberalism. Popular among realists is Morgenthau who believed that politics is directed by objective laws rooted in human nature. He argued that the abstract principles of liberalism are inferior compared to the rational and moralistic approach of realism. Morgenthau postulated that the political landscape of international politics is shaped by the concept of interest defined in terms of power. Although liberalism acknowledged human interest, it ignored the prominent effect of power in relation to interest. This sore lack of consideration of power is important as it influences the understanding of the course of action of states. Morgenthau would disagree with the current interdependence of liberalism. He argued that modern interdependence requires a political order that can only be understood thru the sphere of politics exclusive to realism.

         Mearsheimer, on one hand, would argue that anarchy is the reality of world politics where a central authority is absent. In this self-help reality, states are inclined towards securing their interests. Understandably, Mearsheimer would oppose the idea of cooperation that is integral to liberalism. According to him, cooperation is difficult to maintain as states are preoccupied with relative gains given the anarchic condition of the world. States are concerned with maximizing their power. Since states are not certain about others’ intentions, the fear of other states possibility to cheat further hinder any cooperative interaction. Thucydides would concur with Mearsheimer’s explanation on the dominance of national interest in international politics. As narrated in his “The Melian Dialogue”, states are fated to conquer or be conquered depending on the power at their disposal. Hence, peaceful cooperation is hopeless in the face of insecure states in situation devoid of value, and justice.

         Similarly, Waltz echoed those same counterarguments against liberalism. He claimed that the democratic peace thesis has pronounced limitations as liberals wage war against non-liberals, and even fellow liberals on some occasion. It was mentioned in the article that states, regardless of the regime, come together to solve common problems. According to Waltz, this volatile situation of tension lingers among states with different regimes. At the risk of war, liberal states have a tendency to impose liberal democracy to other states which complicate their relationship. To add, democracy does not address the absence of overarching supreme world authority. In contrast to the optimistic view of interdependence, according to Waltz, interdependence is weak and can actually promote war under unfavorable circumstances. Interdependence, as a result, increases inequality. Furthermore, liberal international institutions serve largely national interest rather than international interests which render it ironic and contradicting to the values it promotes.

         Lastly, constructivism would offer a different perspective against liberalism. In explaining the contemporary liberal order, the liberalists failed to take into account the role of identity and interaction and meaning. Wendt argued that global politics is a socially constructed concept that has accompanying values, norms, and assumptions. In understanding interdependence and cooperation, it is important to note the perceived collective identity of the actors. Thru the institutionalization of this collective identity, interests consistent with this identity follow. As Wendt noted, cooperative and interdependent practices depend on how well-developed the collective identity is. Constructivism would argue that meaning and shared norms facilitate the achievement of similar goals. Over the past years, the urgency of global threats has reached the agenda of world leaders. This construed reality influenced the meaning states attribute to global issues as urgent which eventually, motivate them to collaborate together.    

         Indeed, several threats to liberalism have surfaced over the years. These have posed questions to liberalism’s relative superiority in international politics. But in spite of the criticisms against it, liberalism continues to flourish and define a significant part of world order. With increasing interdependence, cooperation with autocracies, and re-emergence of ideological rivalry, liberal order will continue to triumph. Notwithstanding its global contribution to peace and order, challenging liberalism’s claim and assumptions by invoking realism and constructivism is an equally important task. Nonetheless, new dark forces of global politics will emerge one way or another, but liberal order is here to stay.

*This essay was submitted as a requirement for POS 190 (International Relations).

*Still on the process of editing to avoid plagiarism. References are listed in the original file.