In September 2022, throughout a theatrical tackle on the Kremlin, Russian President Vladimir Putin exclaimed: “And all we hear is, the West is insisting on a rules-based order. The place did that come from anyway? Who agreed to those guidelines?” In entrance of a rigorously chosen viewers and within the context of the unlawful annexation of Ukrainian territories, Putin did greater than problem Western overseas coverage—he rejected the normative legitimacy of the liberal worldwide order altogether. He described Russia not merely as a nation-state however as “a thousand-year-old civilization”.
Putin’s phrases usually are not distinctive in at present’s multipolar world. Leaders like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Xi Jinping, and even Narendra Modi have revived and reformulated civilizational narratives to justify world ambition and home legitimacy. These appeals to historical id and ethical exceptionalism usually are not merely rhetorical prospers; they symbolize a scientific shift in how key non-Western powers interact with the world. By means of what we’d name “civilizational revisionism”, these actors reject the universality of Western values and establishments, as a substitute proposing various normative frameworks grounded in their very own cultural and historic legacies.
The resurgence of civilization as a unit of research in worldwide relations idea remembers Samuel Huntington’s controversial “conflict of civilizations” thesis. Whereas Huntington’s essentialism rightly drew criticism, his anticipation that tradition and id would form geopolitical battle has discovered renewed relevance. At the moment, nevertheless, it’s not a “conflict” however a “recasting” of worldwide order that’s underway. Reasonably than viewing civilizations as passive, immovable blocs, revisionist leaders now “actively mobilize civilizational discourse” to problem the liberal order.
This civilizational flip performs each exterior and inside capabilities. Externally, it serves as a diplomatic counter-narrative to Western hegemony. Internally, it shores up regime legitimacy by interesting to populist nationalism and the romanticization of cultural roots. This strategic duality is most evident within the rhetoric of leaders like Putin and Erdoğan, who use civilization as each sword and protect—to confront perceived exterior threats and to consolidate home authority.
Russia below Putin positions itself because the guardian of a distinctive Eurasian civilization. The Kremlin’s imaginative and prescient of a multipolar world order is tied carefully to its id as a sovereign civilizational state. This narrative not solely rejects NATO growth but additionally casts Western liberalism as morally bankrupt and in decline. Assume tanks near the Kremlin, such because the Valdai Dialogue Membership, incessantly consult with Russia as a “safety provider” in Central Asia and the Center East—not as a part of a bloc, however as a sovereign pole. The invasion of Ukraine exemplifies this logic. Past its army targets, Russia’s aggression has been framed in civilizational phrases: reclaiming historic lands, defending the Russian-speaking world, and resisting the alleged ethical decadence of the West. On this worldview, the warfare just isn’t solely geopolitical, however ontological.
China’s embrace of civilizational rhetoric is extra refined however no much less strategic. Xi Jinping’s doctrine of a “Harmonious World” leans on Confucian beliefs of coexistence, order, and ethical governance. Not like Russia or Turkey, China is much less confrontational in its language however equally revisionist in its ambition. The Belt and Street Initiative (BRI) is emblematic: it’s bought not simply as infrastructure funding however as a civilizational providing rooted in mutual respect and peaceable growth.
Importantly, China invokes its civilizational id to counter accusations of neo-imperialism in Africa and Asia. Beijing positions itself not as a hegemon however as a benevolent elder civilization, providing partnership slightly than dominance. As Acharya notes, China balances these claims with a staunch protection of Westphalian sovereignty, reflecting a practical strategy that avoids revolutionary disruption however nonetheless seeks normative realignment.
Turkey’s flip towards civilizational discourse is maybe much more dramatic. From the late Ottoman period by means of the early Republic, Turkey was outlined by its Westernizing impulse, going along with the homogenous nationwide identity-building undertaking. However below Erdoğan, this trajectory has reversed. In his frequent refrains that “the world is greater than 5” and in his 2021 guide A Fairer World is Potential, Erdoğan articulates an alternate ethical and political order. Diverging from China and Russia, Turkey’s civilizational flip doesn’t construct on a standadone civilisational studying.
As an alternative, it’s introduced as a part of a broader Islamic civilizational ethos, rooted within the concept of “Pax Ottomana” – a revivalist narrative mixing Islamic id with regional ambition. On a better look, it underwrites a story that advocates for comparatively peaceable coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims through the instances of Ottomans. This civilizational transition, nevertheless, just isn’t mere nostalgia. Ankara’s involvement in Africa, the Balkans, and Central Asia usually comes cloaked in civilizational language, looking for to place Turkey because the rightful inheritor to a forgotten however “fairer” imperial legacy. Domestically, this discourse additionally supplies a bulwark in opposition to criticism of democratic backsliding, reframing authoritarian consolidation as cultural sovereignty.
What unites these various actors just isn’t geography or ideology however management type. The current flip to civilizational state is most potent when coupled with strongman politics. Erdoğan, Putin, and Xi share an affinity for centralized energy, populist communication, and existential rhetoric. Their overseas insurance policies usually are not merely interest-driven however identity-infused, constructed round a civilizational “us” versus a decadent or hostile “them.” This framework permits them to rally home assist throughout crises, whether or not army (Ukraine), financial (Turkey), or public health-related (COVID-19 in China). It additionally allows them to sidestep liberal critiques—democracy, human rights, press freedom—by reframing these values as culturally contingent slightly than common.
But civilizational rhetoric just isn’t with out limits. Whereas it serves home politics and world posturing, it additionally constrains diplomatic flexibility. Russia’s isolation post-Ukraine, Turkey’s friction with the EU, and China’s reputational challenges within the International South all recommend that invoking historical glory isn’t any substitute for coherent overseas coverage. Furthermore, as Acharya warns, the civilizational binary between “East and West” creates a false dichotomy that may masks mutual dependencies. Turkey trades extensively with Europe; Russia is dependent upon Chinese language markets; China invests in Western provide chains. Whilst they query the liberal order, these states are embedded inside it.
The rise of civilizational narratives in world politics displays a broader disaster of liberal modernity. As Western establishments falter and world energy diffuses, non-Western actors are seizing the chance to redefine norms on their very own phrases. However whether or not this results in civilizational multipolarity or just a extra managed divergence throughout the current system stays to be seen. What is obvious, nevertheless, is that civilizational discourse has moved from the margins to the mainstream of worldwide relations. It’s now a key language by means of which energy is claimed, legitimacy is carried out, and futures are imagined. Recognizing this isn’t to endorse the narratives themselves however to grasp their profound implications for the worldwide order forward.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
