Suchergebnisse

The rise of populism in Western democracies creates presumed threats on liberal international order. Although a number of scholarly works are dedicated to the populist challenge on liberal democracy, the analysis of populism's implications on the liberal order is limited. This paper deliberates on a concise review of the consequences of populism on the Western liberal order. In order to delineate the study, the article is devoted to the Western populism and its implications on liberal order. The paper, while analyzing the components of liberal international order by drawing on the analytical framework of structural liberalism, intends to claim that populism has adverse consequences on certain elements of the order than others. However, the implication is not an inflection point for the Western liberal order. Furthermore, this paper also provides some explanations behind the limitations of the populist threats to the Western liberal order. The main argument to highlight is that populism is detrimental more to liberal democracy than to the liberal order itself, and the Western liberal order has the capacity to withstand the tide of populism.

India's limited partnership with the liberal international order (LIO) of the post-Second World War period had seen a substantial transformation after the end of the Cold War through its economic integration with the world economy. At this critical time of liberal internationalism triggered by the relative decline of American hegemony, rise of the non-Western powers and the tendency of populism in the West, India's role in the emerging order has been a fundamental imperative. The rationale for its comprehensive partnership with the liberal order rests on four main considerations: the looming threat to the liberal order and India's role; consistency of India's political principles with that of the liberal order; the concern for national interest, identity and global role; and finally, the absence of any viable alternative order. In spite of these promising values and necessities, India's deeper integration has been constrained by three major factors. The first reason relates to the very concept of the LIO, which is slightly Western-oriented. The second reason corresponds to India's core identity and its governing view with regards to the world—of non-alignment, sovereign autonomy, non-interference and civilisational identity. Finally, its maximum assimilation within the liberal order continues to be hindered by 'domestic setbacks'.