03 October 2026, NIICE Commentary 12764
Aswathy B Surendran
Different scholars provide varying and competing views about the world order in terms of leadership and power configuration. To truly understand the debates around rules and order, and to figure out the rules of the game at play, those who wield power and the characteristics of power become the persistent concern.
Ikenberry, while elucidating on Sauvy’s ‘Three Worlds’, presents his version of groupings, namely “Global West, Global East and Global South”, where the latter is characterised as informal, loose, evolving, upholding unique visions and programs, different locations, situation-specific coalitions and subject to changing circumstances. The endurance of the groupings that he talks about in terms of enduring power struggle, creative struggle, agreed principles, and the Global West’s advantageous position is promising yet not infallible. The Global South is painted as a homogeneous political entity, an audience with potential power rather than active agency, whereas China and Russia are presented as the only ones actively countering US hegemony. All other countervailing forces, such as alliances and blocs of countries of the Global South, are not given adequate attention. The three groupings are silent on the role that the other industrialized and wealthy nations of the West have played. It's interesting to note how ‘war’ becomes a central question even in the realm of ideas and diplomacy, as his analysis emphasises hard power and the way resistance by those of the ‘Global South’ can come with or without a cost, which sidelines them or puts them in tricky positions. Notwithstanding. changes in leadership in the Global South have brought differing trends, prioritizing vested interests and negotiating around superpower logics with opposing stances.
Along similar lines of hard power but with a different approach to characterize the power dynamics, Nexon and Wright explicate the ideal-typical network structures, particularly empires, unipolarity, and hegemony, wherein the former is focused on rule via "intermediaries" and "heterogeneous contracting," which entails dynamic and distinct sets of intertwined relationships between the most powerful and the other political communities. Ideal-types help to conceptualize, but international politics in reality has a varying and dynamic nature of anarchy, hierarchy, interdependence, and other relationships.
There is a tendency predominantly to understand power in terms of tangible, quantifiable, and expected means and parameters. To break this monotony and dearth of ideas, the alternative conceptions of power help make sense of threats and uncertainty around what power constitutes and the factors sustaining the status quo. Joseph Nye distinguishes ‘hard power’ and ‘soft power’ to understand the spectrum in which power operates, from ‘command’ (ability to change what others do) to ‘co-optation’ (ability to shape what others want). He discusses how power is difficult to comprehend, measure, and define, and its manifestations in relationships are context-dependent; often, power resources are not as fungible as money. Soft power is a pertinent concept in the study of global politics as it delves into the realm of the immeasurable, unpredictable, and intangible. Nye also explicates how both kinds of power interact, especially creating avenues for disadvantageously positioned states with the evolving nature of alliances. Soft power counters the mechanism of hierarchical organization and helps the flourishing of amorphous entities and modes, building networks and shared identity through technology and communication channels that are also utilized by non-state actors.
For instance, South Korea's massive global rise or Hallyu hegemony through K-pop, K-dramas, fashion, food, etc., is a global expression of soft power wherein dominance is in terms of culture and economy. K-pop especially is facilitating collective art which drives an alternative imagination of divergent identities instead of the conventional prioritization of nationalism and 'politics of confrontation'. Soft power amplified by digital technologies and social media is altering the traditional notions of power.
Furthermore, even the understanding of soft power is nuanced in the way it is negotiated, wielded, and shaped by different countries. For instance, it is evident that countries are often seeking to create strongholds to protect their people's data from the control of Big Tech. The bid for 'data localisation' has strengthened as citizens wish to keep their data within their own country and taxes imposed on these companies are increasing, as there is an increasing intensification of international negotiations over data flows. Governments are pushing for the building of data centres by Big Techs of the world in their home country because most of the technology industry in the world is powered by data centres, which are present mainly in northern Europe and the US coasts. India has made accusations about the 'disconnect between new sources of data and the location of data centres', resulting in data colonisation and digital colonialism. Countries advocate for hosting more data centres to boost industrialisation by gaining competitive advantages for local cloud companies and developing links to other parts of the local IT sector. Moreover, the structural dependency of developing countries makes them rely on foreign-owned digital infrastructure. Developers of technologies are also trying to redefine the realm of 'data sovereignty' by helping individuals gain control over their personal data as well as create social value out of it rather than mere profit.
Thereafter, the real question is how the hierarchy of power manifests in the quest for global leadership. The different understandings of power, particularly hard and soft power, raise dilemmas over whether it can be equated and compared, if it has a distinct character, and whose perceptions of power matter in the way the world order is organized, influenced and sustained.
Aswathy B Surendran holds a Masters’ in Political Science from the University of Delhi, India & she is currently pursuing a Master’s in Public Policy at NLSIU Bengaluru, India.
