Superpower Corrupts Antagonistic Superpowers Corrupt Absolutely

Abstract

If power tends to corrupt, then imagine what superpower can do. Three superpowers, each imbalanced in its own way—toward state communism (China), private capitalism (United States), and national populism (Russia)—vie with each other for global supremacy, all with a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons under the control of a single individual. Whether malevolent or mistaken, any one can provoke World War III. We shall, therefore, have to think outside the superpower box, for example, by favoring grounded communityship over centralized leadership, and global governance beyond antagonistic superpower.

If, as Lord Acton observed, “power tends to corrupt [and] absolute power corrupts absolutely,” then imagine what superpower does, and what antagonistic superpowers can do. Destroy life as we know it.

It has been said often enough that “if we always do as we always did, we will always get what we always got.” Not always. Sometimes we get worse. For example, with regard to global warming, quite obviously if we do as we have always done, catastrophe will follow, likely sooner rather than later—unless war does that first. We have, of course, always had wars, and we always got carnage. But now we have nuclear weapons in the hands of three superpowers that vie with each other for global supremacy. What better way to start World War III: stay the course, to be assured of mutual destruction.

Nuclear weapons figure prominently in superpower status. As it became stymied in neighboring Ukraine, Russia threatened the use of them—an indication that, without them, economically at least, Russia is not a superpower, and that makes it particularly dangerous. China is an economic superpower that, while eyeing Taiwan on its doorstep, is building up its nuclear arsenal. As for the United States, long the economic superpower, it remains supersaturated with nuclear weapons, in fact, was significantly responsible for the crazed nuclear arms race in the first place. The U.S. has its sights on no particular country, save possibly Iran, but that is hardly its history. In fact, the same “Domino Theory” that took America into Vietnam, to stop the expansion of communism in Asia, has now taken Russia into Ukraine, to stop the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.

Add to these dangers are regional wars on the rise, with the superpowers inclined to take sides, not to mention the likes of North Korea racing to arm itself with nuclear weapons. For a species that once fought a war over pepper, it matters not what we human beings fight about, just whether or not we are predisposed to fight, and with what firepower.

Within our boxes, we talk incessantly about thinking outside the box. We had better start thinking, and acting, outside the superpower box—about the very notion of superpower, and of leadership. We begin by putting three and three together—three flawed superpowers, out of almost 200 countries, led by three limited men, out of eight billion of us on earth—and then consider communityship beyond leadership, and global governance beyond superpower.

Three Flawed Superpowers

Imagine a city with weak government and no police force. The gangs would take over and battle each other until they carved up the place for themselves, if they didn’t destroy it first. This is our global village today, more dangerous than ever.

A healthy city, and society, maintains a dynamic balance across a public sector that is respected, a private sector that is responsible, and communities in what could be called the plural sector (civil society) that are robust (Mintzberg, 2015). None of the superpowers is healthy. In the name of communism, China is skewed to public sector government; in the name of democracy, America is skewed to private sector capitalism; in the guise of nationalism, Russia can be described as skewed to plural sector populism. Each seeks to foist its dogma on the rest of the world: democracy of the proletariat, free enterprise, narrow nationalism. Writing this from the West, our dogma may be better than their dogmas, but it is far from being the end of history (Fukuyama, 1989). It exacerbates its own imbalance by enabling private entitlements to overwhelm shared responsibilities (For further exploration of these ideas, see the “Rebalancing Society” website (2023)).

The Economist issues an annual Democracy Index (https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/), rating democracies as full, flawed, hybrid regimes, and autocratic regimes. In 2023, American democracy was rated as “flawed,” a consequence of the gerrymandering of electoral districts and a Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) that essentially legalized bribery, by opening the floodgates of public elections to private funding. Those people who still expect the American superpower to hold the other two in check will have to recognize that, at best, this as a stopgap measure, for a crisis of which superpower itself is significantly responsible. To avert World War III, instead of delaying it, we shall have to marginalize the very power of superpower.

Three Limited Men

Three men currently dominate the three superpowers, each with a finger on the nuclear button. This is based on the reckless belief, on all sides, that we must get be able to get them before they can get us. Shall we continue to bet the lives of those we care about on the impossibility of some psychopath taking power in one of the nuclear nations, or of just one miscalculation? No matter how sane or insane, how decent or deceitful, how thoughtful or thoughtless are the individuals with their fingers on the nuclear buttons, unless we stop this by doing something that has never been done, one of them will push it, with horrific consequences.

We talk incessantly about leadership, and here we have it, with a vengeance. After millennia of sovereigns, fuhrers, and leaders for life, surely we can get past this infantile obsession with leadership, just as we can question the senselessness of superpower. To open this discussion, considered below are two possible ways to proceed, one local, the other global.

Communityship Ahead of Leadership

Major social change can proceed from the top down or the bottom up—through leadership or what we can call communityship. The COP conferences on climate change have been bringing together leaders from around the world, many of whom return home to make plans—decade-long plans sometimes from four-year governments. Contrast this with how some of the major social changes have proceeded, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the American civil rights movement, and the Reformation itself: they began on the ground, in the plural sector. When asked by a black activist to support his cause, Franklin Delano Roosevelt replied that “I want to do it. Now go out and make me do it.” In other words, such change tends to proceed from the bottom up, with a groundswell of community initiatives that get governments to do what is necessary and businesses to do what is responsible.

The plural sector is not “them”; it is you, and I. Many of us may work in the private sector and vote in the public sector, but all of us live much of our personal lives in the plural sector: in our clubs, charities, trusts, and other associations, likewise when we join social initiatives and march in social movements. Here is where we become the indispensable actors for reformation.

Beyond marches and occupations, however, this will require clever, targeted campaigns that challenge egregious behaviors and champion beneficial ones. What was the point, for example, of occupying Wall Street? It is a street; it does nothing wrong. The problems occur behind the closed doors of Wall Street: these need to be challenged, directly (Popovic & Miller, 2015).

Global Governance Beyond Superpower

Balanced democracy works, in cities and countries, when it is based on the rule of law, enforced by trusted policing. Can this be a model for global governance? The United Nations is hardly that. Its General Assembly, with a vote for each nation, amounts largely to a democracy of autocracies, while the veto for each of the three superpowers renders its Security Council an Insecurity Council. How about a democracy of democracies, even if only to open the box to a broader discussion of global governance.

Twenty-four countries are rated as full democracies in the Economist's 2023 Index. Many are small, such as Uruguay, Mauritius, and Norway. The largest is Japan, the world's 11th most populous country, which means that the 10 largest countries in the world are not full democracies, including all three superpowers (the United States at 26, Russia at 146, China at 156).

No formal body, of course, designates superpower status, while only the member nations themselves determine the membership of the G7. Imagine, then, if the full democracies formed themselves into an Assembly of Democracies, a D24 of smaller powers.

Initially, such an Assembly could add a legitimate voice for peace in the world—an alternative to the strident voices of the superpowers—perhaps even act as a bulwark for progressive social initiatives. And, should a nuclear confrontation loom, such an Assembly might be the only place to turn for resolution beyond confrontation—a Peace Council in-waiting, so to speak. Perhaps it could eventually metamorphose into legitimate global government, backed up by a return to substantial policing.

Our Fate is Not Fanciful

If all this sounds impossible, even fanciful, consider this. During Covid, with their populations sufficiently alarmed, many countries adopted changes that would have been unthinkable: they stuttered their economies and cloistered their people. The situations that we face today, whether climate change or nuclear confrontation, are far more alarming—everything we cherish could be gone in a flash—yet governments are hardly acting.

If you think that somebody ought to be doing something about this, please bear in mind that this somebody will have to be you, and me, as we, especially in our communities. Hence, if you care not for the particular suggestions introduced here, please develop and champion others. We simply cannot continue to do what we have always done, hoping for the best until we get the worst.

Donald Trump wishes to make America great again. Xi Jinping wishes to make China great again. Vladimir Putin wishes to make Russia great again. This world is not big enough for any of them, let alone all of them. Together, we shall have to make the world safe again.