Samuel Huntington and the War in Ukraine

In 1991, as the Soviet Union was falling apart, political science underwent a transformation. Focused on the great conflict of the 20th century between Capitalism and Communism, the profession had to answer a singular question: what happens next?

Four theories were put forward. Francis Fukuyama has become rather famously, infamous for predicting “the end of history.” His theory was that the triumph of liberal democracy meant that the entire world would adopt this system due to its success, and that everyone being under the same liberal world order would lead to a stability. That isn’t quite what happened. Many people, especially now, repeat a counter-mantra to the title of his article, “History is happening again.”

There is one political theorist, who was well in his 70s at the time, that predicted that the new system would not be stable at all, but rather, it would allow countries and peoples to get back to the kind of conflicts that existed before the World Wars. Samuel Huntington would not live long enough to see his theory become reality, but we are living in the world he predicted.

Indeed, Peter Zeihan has echoed this comment recently by comparing our present situation to the world before World War I. There were a variety of small conflicts between nations laterally all over the world. The great empires competed both at home and between their colonies. Given that we are living through a dynamic historical period, who is Samuel Huntington, and what does his predictions, in 1992, tell us about our present global order?

Who is Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington was a prominent political scientist whose research on democracy, authoritarianism, and international relations has been influential in shaping our understanding of global politics. Huntington’s most famous work is his book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.” In this book, he argued that the world was entering a new phase of conflict in which the primary source of conflict would be between civilizations, rather than nation-states or ideologies. He identified several major civilizations, including Western, Islamic, and Confucian, and argued that their differences would lead to conflict.

This idea of the clash of civilizations is still relevant today, as we see tensions between different civilizations playing out in various parts of the world. For example, the conflict between the West and the Islamic world has been a major source of tension since the 9/11 attacks. The rise of populist movements in the West and the growing influence of China in the world also highlight the potential for conflict between civilizations.

Civilization and Democracy

One of the great conflicts of the 21st century seems to be drawing battle lines, and that conflict will be between authoritarianism and democracy. This was a conflict already pointed out in Huntington’s work on democracy He argued that democratization was more likely to succeed in countries that had already experienced economic development, and that it was important to focus on building institutions that would support democracy, rather than simply holding elections.

We see many countries struggling with the transition to democracy. In countries where economic development has not yet occurred, democratization efforts are often stymied by poverty and lack of infrastructure. In addition, we see examples of countries that have held elections but have not developed the institutions necessary to support democracy, leading to instability and even violence. One could argue this is currently playing out between China and Taiwan, for example.

Huntington’s work on authoritarianism is also critical to our understanding of current geopolitical trends. He studied authoritarian regimes and the conditions under which they were most likely to fall. He argued that authoritarian regimes were more likely to fall when they faced a crisis of legitimacy, and that democratization was most likely to occur when there was a broad-based opposition movement that could challenge the regime.

Authoritarian regimes facing growing opposition from their citizens. The recent protests in Hong Kong and Belarus are examples of citizens pushing back against authoritarian regimes. In addition, we see the potential for authoritarian regimes to fall in countries such as North Korea and Venezuela, where economic and political instability are leading to increasing opposition.

That being said, we are also seeing some countries flee toward authoritarianism. We see this in almost every major democracy. From Italy with the 5-star party to France with Front Nationale. Even in the US, the era of Donald Trump had authoritarian overtones and it is one of the few times in American history, where the American president openly seemed to embrace the ideology of authoritarianism and seemed to like to associate himself with authoritarians like Putin and even Kim Jong-Un.

The End of the Liberal World Order?

Huntington’s work on international relations is also important to our understanding of the current geopolitical environment. He introduced the concept of the “security dilemma,” which refers to the tendency of countries to arm themselves in response to the perceived threat of other countries arming themselves.

China, Russia, and the United States are engaged in a global arms race. As each country builds up its military, other countries perceive this as a threat and respond in kind, leading to a vicious cycle of arms buildup. This was amplified by most of the nuclear non-proliferation treaties expiring without renewal from Russia and the United States. This means that a new nuclear arms race could begin. In terms of military build-up and spending, the trend is definitely toward a build-up rather than a draw-down. So much for beating our swords into plough shares.

There is also a new alliance forming between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The BRICs, which include India and Brazil are also stepping out of the liberal order. These nations stand alone against an otherwise hegemonic global order. However, as Huntington predicted, a new multipolar world is forming and the dominance of a singular world order is beginning to fade. This means that there will be more conflicts between these new civilizations. Rather than a permanent peace and “end of history” as proposed by Fukuyama, Huntington predicted more conflict as everyone realigns. It’s back to the world as it was before World War I. Another feature of that world? Populism.

Populism

In addition to the specific insights mentioned above, Huntington’s research has broader implications for our understanding of global politics. His work emphasizes the importance of culture and identity in shaping political behavior. He argues that people are often more strongly influenced by their cultural and religious identities than by their political beliefs.

This insight is relevant today as we see the rise of nationalism and identity politics in many parts of the world. In countries such as the United States, Brazil, and India, we see leaders who are appealing to their citizens’ sense of national identity to gain support. In a world where the lines between people are getting blurred, anyone who can draw some clarity and make things simple is going to gain a great deal of support. It doesn’t matter how complicated the world actually might be, it’s merely the illusion of sanity and simplicity that will over hearts.

Indeed, the rise of Volodimir Zelensky himself was one of populist intent, just as much as Donald Trump. His leadership during the war has taken on nationalist tones, especially given the involvement of far-right groups like the Azov Battalion. The struggle is not merely over land but national identity and who is allowed to exist as their people, which also begins to evoke thoughts about culture and society.

Huntington’s work also emphasizes the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context of different societies. He argues that democracy and other political systems cannot be exported from one society to another, but must be developed in the context of each society’s unique history and culture.

The politics of the last 30 years have singularly disregarded this edict and many thought leaders wring their hands at conferences at why some countries like Hungary, Russia, or Turkey eschew democracy and western reforms. Society and culture matter, and these things are often not as interchangeable as we would like them to be.

What Does This All Mean?

If Samuel Huntington had lived longer to see what we are going through now, he would be delightfully vindicated. His view was not popular at the time. Fukuyama’s “End of History” was more widely adopted as the consensus view. For Samuel Huntington, everything is working out just as he predicted. Rather than the end of history, what we are living through is the re-starting of history with all its low-level wars, conflicts, national problems and ethnic issues. In the recent past, this was all sublimated to the tension of the Cold War and before that by the great empires. Now, it is open season on the world stage for things to change, new alliances to form and new conflict to break out. History has begun once again, and we are living in the interesting chapters of the history book.