Today’s world is at crossroads, where nations are struggling to construct their identities in polarized world order. When the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) was announced in March 2023, it seemed to be yet another diplomatic story well-constructed and dressed up in the garments of cooperation and discussion. Yet, beneath its rhetoric lies a disconcerting possibility: a system that provides a rationale for authoritarian regimes in the name of cultural relativism.
Having grown up in an area where civil liberties are always at the receiving end of government authoritarianism, we can only look at such programs as the GCI with suspicion. It may appeal to leaders who are seeking legitimacy for their authoritarian practices, but they do not consider the rights of people. Therefore, the GCI may seem to promote cooperation among civilizations, but it threatens basic human rights. Even though liberal world order—often weaponized by west— is far from perfect but provides essential safeguards for human rights.
Read More: Keir Starmer’s Labour: Navigating Islamophobia Amidst Shifting Muslim Support
Cultural Relativism: Shielding Traditions or Silencing Right?
The Global Civilization Initiative, proposed by the Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2023, calls for promoting respect, equity, and dialogue among civilizations. The GCI is rooted in China’s calls for cooperation of civilizations rather than the ‘Clash of Civilizations,’ a theory pioneered by Samuel Huntington in the 1990s. China portrays the Western view of the liberal democratic values as the new imperialism that deepens the division. On the other hand, the GCI outlines respect for state sovereignty and the right to determine their political systems.
It highlights cultural relativism, citing that values and practices are unique to society’s cultures, and they must be understood and respected in their unique cultural context. Prima facie, it looks like a reasonable proposition – a dignified counterpoint to universalism, which many have rightly accused of imposing western values on the world.
But here is where skepticism rises. Cultural relativism is a concept that authoritarian regimes can easily use as a justification for its oppression of dissent, suppression of freedom or violation of human rights. Many of the authoritarian regimes of developing countries i.e. Ethopia, Rawanda have already crashed political activism citing that western democracy does not conform to their culture.
Flaws in the Liberal Order: A Prelude to Discontent
The countries of Global South are particularly appealed by the GCI. These countries feel marginalized by the liberal international democratic order. Historically, the western powers have always harnessed the liberal democratic order to further their interest in the international arena. Human rights checks have always been different for different states. For instance, calling out a country for violations of human rights while ignoring similar violations by allies. The west has championed democracy, yet they supported authoritarian and oil-rich countries. This hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed in the Global South and has led nations to view China’s authoritarian model as an alternate.
Read More: How an Indian Judge Challenged and Provoked Boundaries of South Asian Humor?
It is an undeniable fact that the liberal world order has been flawed. Take neoliberal economic policies which increased economic inequalities. Oxfam’s 2023 report shows that the richest 1% of the global population now owns more wealth than the bottom 50% combined. According to the World Bank reports, despite the economic growth in developing countries, the problem of inequality still prevails. Trade agreements, which work in the interest of the developed countries, have consolidated poor economies into resource extraction and low-value exports, thus starting the cycle of poverty.
The Danger of Authoritarian Legitimacy
Nevertheless, cultural relativism as a replica of liberal democratic norms can be more problematic. The idea that all cultural practices and political systems are equally valid in the international system raises one crucial question: who will define these values? Often, it is the governments, not the people and herein lies the danger. Take the example of Afghanistan. The Taliban regime defies girl’s education citing their Islamic cultural values, irrespective of the fact that Islam does not restrict girls from education. Therefore, cultural relativism seems to serve government, not the people.
One wrong does not make another wrong right. Therefore, the incumbent liberal world order cannot be replaced by an authoritarian order which is dressed in suit of cultural relativism. If states are permitted to use ‘cultural values’ as a justification, they can easily justify violation of human rights, from the rights of free speech to structural violence. What is worse, such cultural claims may not even represent the actual culture, but rather represents the interest of political elites.
The GCI offers authoritarian regimes an effective ideological defense. By employing cultural relativism, governments could disregard any criticism from the international community. Think of regimes claiming that their surveillance upon citizens stem from their cultural value of ‘collective harmony’ or suppression of dissidents is reflection of their ‘traditional values.’ This appearance of legitimacy makes it difficult for other international actors to question these practices.
Even worse, the democratic countries of the Global South may begin to import authoritarian models. Economically and politically destabilized countries could view the GCI as a viable and attractive substitute to liberal democratic norms. The result? A cycle of authoritarianism that generates violence and repression, which undermines the progress towards democracy and human rights.
The Way Forward
The world does need an alternative to the current liberal order, but it should be the one that lifts people, not just the governments. It should concentrate in eradicating poverty, promoting good governance and good policies for the welfare of the people. The model which does not represent interests of powerful states only, but smaller and weaker nations are also empowered in it. To achieve this end, international cooperation is a must. Economic inequalities should be tackled by fairer trade relations, debts relief for developing countries, and investing in sustainable development. Cultural respect and cooperation should be encouraged but it should not be used as means for political gains. It should be for cooperation and cooperation only.
But it will not be an unchallenging ride. While populist and radicalized governments have come to power in the West, and other authoritarian regimes securing their positions, the world appears more polarized than ever. However, history teaches us that change is possible when people want change. People, non-governmental organizations, and international actors should strive for a new world order where justice and equity, not dominance and control prevail.
The Global Civilization Initiative may provide a seductive vision of the world where people are living in peace and harmony. But the cultural relativism, on which it is based, threatens to replace the values of freedom with the values of obedience. While it reveals contradictions of the liberal world order, it is just a replacement of one flawed system with another faulty one. As global citizens, we need to work for the kind of world order that is based on collaboration, justice, and uplift humanity – an order where no one gains at the expense of others. Only then can we create a just and harmonious civilization on this planet, in this world.
Saad Ul Hassan is an Islamabad based researcher.