By Subhash Dhuliya
The West’s two centuries of global dominance were a historical exception. For most of history, Asia — particularly China and India — accounted for the majority of global output. The “rise of the rest” is not disruption but restoration- Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former foreign minister and author.
The world has reached an inflection point. For three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, globalization — led by liberal democracies and free markets — appeared unstoppable. Trade expanded, capital flowed across borders, and a seemingly universal consumer culture spread from Hollywood to Hong Kong. For many, this was the “end of history,” as Francis Fukuyama famously argued, with liberal democracy and free markets destined to dominate the future.
Yet the optimism of the 1990s has given way to a different reality. Globalism, once celebrated as a universal path to prosperity, is now in retreat. Rising inequality, fragile supply chains, political backlash, and cultural pushback have exposed the limits of Western-led globalization. Ironically, the very nations that built this order — the United States and its allies — are now questioning its value, turning toward protectionism and nationalism.
At the same time, the world is not collapsing into isolationism. Instead, a new order is emerging — one that is multipolar, pluralistic, and increasingly shaped by the Global South. As Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former foreign minister, reminds us, the decline of Western dominance may not be the end of globalization but its reinvention. The rise of Asia, Africa, and Latin America suggests that the next chapter of globalization will be written not only in Washington and Brussels, but also in Beijing, New Delhi, Nairobi, and São Paulo.
The retreat of globalism is therefore not the end of the story. It is the beginning of a struggle to define a new, more balanced world order.
The Age of Globalism: Promise and Expansion
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 unleashed what many saw as a new era of human progress. The post–Cold War order rested on three major pillars:
- Political liberalism: Liberal democracy was celebrated as the universal model of governance. Many post-Communist states in Eastern Europe transitioned toward democratic systems.
- Economic liberalism: The free market was viewed as the only viable system. “Liberalization, privatization, and globalization” became the guiding principles of reform.
- Cultural liberalism: Western consumerism spread rapidly. Hollywood, McDonald’s, and English-language media seemed to create a single global culture.
In its early years, globalism looked like a success story. International trade and investment grew at historic rates. The internet and communications revolution connected billions of people. Multinational corporations built global supply chains and careers. Most importantly, millions were lifted out of poverty in Asia — particularly in China and India — making globalization appear synonymous with progress (Stiglitz, 2002).
Cracks in the Liberal Order
Beneath the optimism, contradictions soon became visible.
- Economic inequality: Globalism created immense wealth, but concentrated gains in fewer hands. In the United States, surveys showed that over 60% of households lacked emergency savings (Federal Reserve, 2022). In India, despite rapid growth, 800 million citizens still depend on subsidized food rations (Government of India, 2023).
- Political backlash: Far from securing liberal democracy, globalization often undermined it. Populism, right-wing nationalism, and illiberal regimes gained traction as citizens felt excluded from prosperity.
- Cultural pushback: Instead of a single global culture, local identities reasserted themselves. Religious, ethnic, and national traditions surged, resisting Western homogenization.
The promise of globalism was thus uneven. It lifted some but marginalized many, undermining the very legitimacy of the liberal order.
The Retreat of Globalism
By the 2010s, the retreat became unmistakable.
- Trade wars: The United States, architect of the postwar liberal economic order, turned toward protectionism, launching tariff wars against China and weakening institutions such as the WTO.
- Pandemic shock: COVID-19 exposed the fragility of global interdependence. Nations rushed to secure medical supplies, stockpile essentials, and redesign supply chains around self-reliance.
- Digital fragmentation: Data sovereignty, AI regulation, and cybersecurity concerns splintered the digital economy into competing ecosystems — American, Chinese, and European.
- National strategies: India launched Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliance), while Europe spoke of “strategic autonomy.” Even developing nations looked inward, prioritizing food security and resilience.
Globalization had not disappeared, but it was clearly no longer synonymous with Western-led globalism.
Asia Rising: A Global South Perspective
While many in the West see crisis, much of the Global South sees opportunity. The decline of Western dominance allows for a more balanced world order.
Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former foreign minister, makes this case forcefully in Has the West Lost It? (2018). He argues that the West’s two centuries of global dominance were a historical exception. For most of history, Asia — particularly China and India — accounted for the majority of global output. The “rise of the rest” is not disruption but restoration.
Mahbubani further critiques the West’s missteps: NATO expansion alienated Russia; military interventions drained legitimacy; and hubris blinded leaders to Asia’s rise. He challenges the idea that 12% of the world’s population (the West) should dictate terms to the other 88%.
For the Global South, the retreat of Western-led globalism is not the end of globalization, but the chance to shape it differently — through regional groupings such as BRICS, ASEAN, and the African Union, and through cultural assertiveness from Bollywood to K-pop to Nollywood.
Global Challenges in a Fragmented World
Ironically, globalism is in retreat at the very moment humanity faces challenges that demand cooperation. Climate change, pandemics, financial instability, and cyber insecurity cross all borders.
Joseph Stiglitz (2006) has long warned that poorly managed globalization undermines trust and collective action. Michel Chossudovsky (2003) argues that neoliberal globalization has deepened poverty and destabilized societies, especially in the Global South. Without reform, globalization risks losing legitimacy just when it is most urgently needed.
Reinventing Globalization: The Emerging Order
The retreat of globalism does not imply the end of globalization. It signals transformation. The emerging order is likely to be:
- Multipolar in politics: Hybrid regimes may combine democracy with stronger state control. Power will be distributed across the U.S., China, India, Europe, and regional blocs.
- Regulated in economics: Welfare states, sustainability-driven policies, and managed markets will increasingly replace unrestrained neoliberalism.
- Pluralistic in culture: The dominance of Western consumerism is giving way to cultural pluralism — from African art to Asian cinema to Latin American literature.
Instead of a single global order, multiple regional systems may coexist and overlap, creating a more diverse but also contested world.
Competing Visions of Globalization
| Dimension | Western-Led Globalism (1991–2010) | Emerging Global South Vision (2020s– ) |
| Political Model | Liberal democracy as universal destiny | Multipolar politics; hybrid regimes combining democracy and state control |
| Economic Approach | Neoliberalism — deregulation, privatization, free markets | Regulated markets, welfare policies, sustainability-driven growth |
| Cultural Outlook | Westernization and consumer culture dominate (Hollywood, McDonald’s, English media) | Cultural pluralism — Bollywood, K-pop, Nollywood, African art, indigenous traditions |
| Power Structure | U.S.-led unipolar order; Europe as junior partner | Multipolar blocs — BRICS, ASEAN, African Union, regional cooperation |
| Global Institutions | WTO, IMF, World Bank as central arbiters | Push for reform; creation of alternatives like New Development Bank (BRICS) |
| View of Globalization | Universalist — one global order under liberal rules | Contextual — multiple regional orders coexisting, tailored to local needs |
Conclusion: From Retreat to Reinvention
What Francis Fukuyama once hailed as the “end of history” now appears to be only the end of Western-led globalism. History is not ending; it is shifting. Every retreat opens the space for renewal, and every crisis offers the chance for reinvention.
Globalization is not dying. It is transforming into something less Western, more multipolar, and potentially more inclusive. The emerging world order will be shaped not only in Washington or Brussels but also in Beijing, New Delhi, Nairobi, and São Paulo.
The task before future leaders is not to decide whether globalization will survive — it will — but to shape the kind of globalization that emerges from this retreat.
References
- Chossudovsky, M. (2003). The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. Global Research.
- Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.
- Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster.
- Mahbubani, K. (2018). Has the West Lost It? A Provocation. Penguin.
- Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Stiglitz, J. (2006). Making Globalization Work. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Federal Reserve. (2022). Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2021.
- Government of India. (2023). National Food Security Act Data Portal.
Author’s Note
Subhash Dhuliya is a researcher, educator, and commentator on global affairs, with a focus on media, culture, and international communication. Founder-Director, Newswriters.in. Former Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Open University. Former Professor at IGNOU | IIMC | CURAJ
Photo by Paolo Chiabrando on Unsplash
