“Understanding the Emerging World Order (Part I)”

by Ali Mansoor

The Historical Norm for Society

Since the rise of civilization in the fourth millennium BCE, many societies have been dominated by priestly and warrior elites, often intertwining the divine with the secular. This was evident in the rule of the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Roman Emperors (both pre- and post-Christianity), the Chinese and Japanese Emperors, and the Ottoman Sultans (Diamond, 1997). However, exceptions exist. Ancient Athens and the Roman Republic developed participatory governance structures (Ober, 2008), while Ashoka’s Mauryan Empire and Mughal Emperor Akbar promoted religious tolerance over divine rulership (Thapar, 2002). The notion of divine mandate, as seen in the Chinese “Mandate of Heaven” and the European “Divine Right of Kings,” reinforced the idea of noble rule, but history also offers alternative governance models, such as the Iroquois Confederacy and medieval European communes (Graeber & Wengrow, 2021).

The Enlightenment and the Modern World

The Enlightenment, emerging in response to religious persecution (e.g., France’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685), placed the individual at the center of society and emphasized reason, justice, and inalienable rights (Israel, 2001). These ideas laid the foundation for modern liberal democracies, most notably in the American Republic. However, the U.S. Constitution institutionalized slavery despite the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence (Foner, 1988). Over time, social movements expanded democratic rights, reflecting the Enlightenment’s evolving legacy.

By 1945, Enlightenment principles had become globally influential, culminating in their incorporation into the United Nations Charter (Mazower, 2012). Despite contradictions in practice—such as colonialism and segregation—these ideas structured a new world order.

The Pax Americana

Following World War II, the United States emerged as a dominant power and played a central role in establishing the rules-based international order. The Pax Americana was built on several principles:

Borders should not be changed by force. The U.S. and its allies intervened against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but inconsistently applied this principle (e.g., Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014) (Mearsheimer, 2014).
Securing global trade and sea lanes. The U.S. Navy maintained open trade routes, benefiting global commerce (Kaplan, 2010).
Economic prosperity through cooperation. Trade agreements like GATT and the WTO promoted interdependence (Rodrik, 2011).
Development aid for poorer nations. While foreign aid contributed to economic growth, its effectiveness remains debated (Easterly, 2006).

Although the U.S. sometimes violated these rules—intervening in Latin America and Vietnam—it generally upheld them, fostering economic growth in many regions. However, Africa’s economic progress lagged behind other parts of the world due to structural inequalities and historical legacies (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

The End of an Unusual Period in History

The Pax Americana coincided with unprecedented reductions in famine, epidemics, and war. Modern food security mechanisms prevented mass starvation, unlike past catastrophes. The last major famine in the Horn of Africa in 2011-2012 affected approximately 13 million people, but international humanitarian efforts helped limit deaths to an estimated 260,000 (UN FAO, 2013). In contrast, 30 million died in Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward famine (1959-1961) (Dikötter, 2010; Yang, 2012; Chang & Halliday, 2005). The Bengal famine of 1943, occurring under British rule in India, led to the deaths of 2 to 3 million people, largely due to wartime policies and food mismanagement (Sen, 1981; Greenough, 1982). The Russian famine of 1921-1922, exacerbated by civil war and Bolshevik policies, resulted in 5 to 8 million deaths (Patenaude, 2002; Applebaum, 2017). Similarly, the Irish famine (1845-1852), driven by potato crop failures and British economic policies, claimed around 1 million lives (Mokyr, 1985; Ó Gráda, 2009).

Liberal democracy faces a critical moment. If unchecked, the rise of billionaire-driven governance could erode democratic institutions, leading to a society where power is concentrated among those who control AI and digital platforms.

Epidemics like COVID-19, while severe, had a lower global mortality rate than historical plagues (CDC, 2022). War deaths, though persistent, declined significantly relative to pre-1945 levels (Pinker, 2011). However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 suggests that peace was not a permanent condition, but a temporary anomaly (Snyder, 2022).

The Role of Technology and AI in Reshaping Society

Karl Marx argued that societal structures are shaped by modes of production (Marx, 1867). The Industrial Revolution made serfdom and slavery obsolete, paving the way for liberal democracy. Today, the information age presents a new challenge: algorithms that increasingly mediate human decision-making. AI determines what people consume, who they interact with, and even their political beliefs (Zuboff, 2019). This challenges Enlightenment ideals, which emphasize individual autonomy.

Peter Thiel, a prominent technologist, argues that democracy and technological progress are incompatible, advocating for monopolistic capitalism instead (Thiel, 2009). His financial support of populist candidates signals a shift toward governance driven by corporate elites rather than democratic institutions (Runciman, 2018).

A New Feudalism?

Economic inequality is reaching levels that some scholars compare to pre-modern aristocracies. In 2020, the top 1% of earners captured 20% of global income, with billionaires consolidating unprecedented wealth (Piketty, 2014). Unlike millionaires who rely on some public services, billionaires seek to minimize state intervention entirely. Figures like Elon Musk advocate for deregulation, reducing government oversight in industries from transportation to artificial intelligence (O’Connell, 2022).

While the comparison to medieval feudalism is imperfect—tech elites do not hold legal dominion over populations—they do exert significant control over infrastructure, digital spaces, and economic policies. Their ability to shape public opinion through algorithmic manipulation raises concerns about democratic backsliding (McChesney, 2013). Historical parallels can be drawn to the decline of free peasantries in medieval Europe, where insecurity led populations to cede power to military elites in exchange for protection (Bloch, 1961).

The Battle for Liberal Democracy

The 2024 U.S. election demonstrated the power of digital narratives. Algorithms created perceptions of economic decline despite rising wages and low unemployment (Krugman, 2024). Claims of a border crisis, despite lower crossings than during Trump’s first term, were amplified to drive voter sentiment (Pew Research, 2023). Moreover, voter suppression efforts have targeted marginalized communities (Anderson, 2021).

To counteract these trends, democratic forces must develop counter-algorithms to combat misinformation. However, this alone is insufficient. Strengthening regulatory oversight, investing in public-interest journalism, and increasing digital literacy are essential steps (Sunstein, 2017). Transparency in AI governance, such as requiring platforms to disclose content-ranking algorithms, can mitigate manipulation (Pasquale, 2015).

Conclusion

Liberal democracy faces a critical moment. If unchecked, the rise of billionaire-driven governance could erode democratic institutions, leading to a society where power is concentrated among those who control AI and digital platforms. However, history suggests that no system is inevitable. By implementing stronger regulations, countering disinformation, and reinforcing democratic participation, societies can resist this new form of digital feudalism. The future of democracy depends on whether individuals recognize and act upon these emerging threats.

About the Author

Ali Mansoor is the former Financial Secretary of the Government of Mauritius. He has also served as Lead Economist at the World Bank and Assistant Director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail. Crown Business.
Anderson, C. (2021). Voter Suppression in the U.S. Princeton University Press.
Applebaum, A. (2017). Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. Doubleday.
Bloch, M. (1961). Feudal Society. University of Chicago Press.
Chang, J., & Halliday, J. (2005). Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape.
Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao’s Great Famine. Bloomsbury.
Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden. Penguin.
Foner, E. (1988). Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution. HarperCollins.
Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2021). The Dawn of Everything. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Greenough, P. R. (1982). Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: The Famine of 1943-1944. Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, R. (2010). Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. Random House.
Krugman, P. (2024). The Perception Gap in Economic Policy. New York Times.
Mearsheimer, J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.
Mokyr, J. (1985). Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy, 1800-1850. George Allen & Unwin.
Ó Gráda, C. (2009). Famine: A Short History. Princeton University Press.
Patenaude, B. M. (2002). The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921. Stanford University Press.
Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature. Viking.
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford University Press.
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2013). The 2011–2012 Famine in Somalia: Evidence for a Declaration.
Yang, J. (2012). Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Public Affairs.