Democracy, the Arab Spring and the Future (Great Powers) of International Politics
A Structural Realist Perspective
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6213616 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eben Coetzee (0000-0002-0926-7815, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 299-318 |
| Publication date | 2013-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Politikon (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0258-9346 • E-ISSN: 1470-1014 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02589346.2013.798461 |
| OpenAlex | W2009725538 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 15 |
Liberal optimism about the future of world affairs continues to pervade discourse on international politics. Recent events, notably the Arab Spring, have ostensibly justified such optimism and have further bolstered democratic-peace-inspired notions of permanent peace. I challenge the validity of this optimism by drawing on Kenneth Waltz's structural realist theory and by arguing that, irrespective of the future democratisation of the world, the future of international politics is bound to be marked by increased complexity. This conclusion is buttressed by three observations: one, the crux of liberal optimism, i.e. democratic-peace theory, is flawed; two, the state of liberal democracy within and beyond areas common to liberal thought is highly problematic; and three, with respect to international peace, the future (liberal) democratisation of China, Russia or of whomever else will matter less than usually presumed. In more ways than one, the future of international politics is likely to resemble its conflict-prone past. Notes Thus, as then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has noted, Russia ‘must rely on the very latest developments in the art of war. Falling behind means becoming vulnerable’ (Putin Citation2012). In respect of US-European military competition and arms transfers in particular, recent arguments emphasise that US policy objectives should be ensuring that the major arms importers of the world ‘buy products from the United States rather than China, Russia, or even western Europe’ (Caverley and Kapstein Citation2013; emphasis added). It should be noted that the concepts ‘democracy’ and ‘liberalism’ and, by extension, ‘democratic peace theory’ and ‘liberal peace theory’ do not necessarily coincide. The argument advanced here has bearing on both. We will, in the next section, consider whether this condition still characterises the world of the present. We should add that, in financial terms, questions abound in respect of the survivability of the US dollar as the reserve currency of the international financial system and that China has already called for its replacement (Layne Citation2011). Additional informationNotes on contributorsEben Coetzee Department of Political Studies & Governance, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Democracy · Democratization · Epistemology · Foreign policy · International relations · Liberal democracy · Liberalism · Optimism · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Philosophy · Political Conflict and Governance
Democracy and War
Debating the Democratic Peace
The unipolar exit
Shell Games, Shallow Gains, and the Democratic Peace
Shifting Eastern Mediterranean Geometry
The Emerging Structure of International Politics
Structural Realism after the Cold War
Theory of international politics
Disturbing the Peace
Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace
Evaluating Theories
The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory
Explaining the Democratic Peace
Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Power PeacePresidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2001
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |