Uhhh, anyone for a contradiction in terms? Wouldn't 'of more than one pole' mean that multiple actors contribute (to decisions, etc)? Logically, then, bipolar, like the N/S poles of a magnet, would imply opposition (and conflict). So, how could a party or country or pole, or anything with only one force be 'democratic'? Doesn't democracy require at least two forces opposing each other to create movement? What happens when the two are so close to each other as to be indistinguishable, like the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK, or the Republican and Democratic parties in the US? You don't see much movement there; continual deadlock. What about countries, where proportional representation creates coalition governments? Why is democracy working so much better in Russia, China and many other places, where people are, generally speaking, pleased by their governments, than it is in Europe or the US, where there is, for the most part, deep-seated resentment and outright distrust, not to mention disgust at politicians, of the governments in power?
"The US’ is inherently anti-democratic since that declining unipolar hegemon pressures others to comply with its liberal-globalist demands even at the expense of their objective national interests. By contrast, Russia’s is inherently democratic since it respects each country’s right to manage their internal and international affairs however they like."
Answers my question above. I should have read the whole article before running off at the mouth by submitting a post.
Sorry! (Thought I might get away with a quicky there. )
"In that event, only the American and Chinese superpowers would have any real sovereignty in the world system..."
And back to the old bi-polar Cold War.
"Furthermore, China and Russia are on opposite sides of the Kashmir Conflict and the South China Sea territorial issue, but their leaderships are mature enough not to let these differences impede their mutually beneficial cooperation."
So, the rest of the world grows up while the bully boys, who won WWII, remain in their sandpits apportioning territory and influence.
"...it’s still being responsibly managed by both sides .."
What, you mean, like adults?
"...the liberal-globalists’ faction still dominates."
When adults have to intervene to explain to bullying kids how best to behave, it can take an awfully long time and much persuasion, to convince them they need to give back the spoils of bullying.
"Those like Tamkin who still don’t acknowledge this have an agenda in manipulating perceptions about India’s newfound role in the world."
If you go to just about any school playground just about anywhere in the world and ask the teacher which of the kids is the bully, you'll find just about exactly the same thing.
"...an anti-democratic multipolar one."
Uhhh, anyone for a contradiction in terms? Wouldn't 'of more than one pole' mean that multiple actors contribute (to decisions, etc)? Logically, then, bipolar, like the N/S poles of a magnet, would imply opposition (and conflict). So, how could a party or country or pole, or anything with only one force be 'democratic'? Doesn't democracy require at least two forces opposing each other to create movement? What happens when the two are so close to each other as to be indistinguishable, like the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK, or the Republican and Democratic parties in the US? You don't see much movement there; continual deadlock. What about countries, where proportional representation creates coalition governments? Why is democracy working so much better in Russia, China and many other places, where people are, generally speaking, pleased by their governments, than it is in Europe or the US, where there is, for the most part, deep-seated resentment and outright distrust, not to mention disgust at politicians, of the governments in power?
Just a thought.
"The US’ is inherently anti-democratic since that declining unipolar hegemon pressures others to comply with its liberal-globalist demands even at the expense of their objective national interests. By contrast, Russia’s is inherently democratic since it respects each country’s right to manage their internal and international affairs however they like."
Answers my question above. I should have read the whole article before running off at the mouth by submitting a post.
Sorry! (Thought I might get away with a quicky there. )
"In that event, only the American and Chinese superpowers would have any real sovereignty in the world system..."
And back to the old bi-polar Cold War.
"Furthermore, China and Russia are on opposite sides of the Kashmir Conflict and the South China Sea territorial issue, but their leaderships are mature enough not to let these differences impede their mutually beneficial cooperation."
So, the rest of the world grows up while the bully boys, who won WWII, remain in their sandpits apportioning territory and influence.
"...it’s still being responsibly managed by both sides .."
What, you mean, like adults?
"...the liberal-globalists’ faction still dominates."
When adults have to intervene to explain to bullying kids how best to behave, it can take an awfully long time and much persuasion, to convince them they need to give back the spoils of bullying.
"Those like Tamkin who still don’t acknowledge this have an agenda in manipulating perceptions about India’s newfound role in the world."
If you go to just about any school playground just about anywhere in the world and ask the teacher which of the kids is the bully, you'll find just about exactly the same thing.