By Newswriters Editorial Desk
In his recent essay “All Civilizations Are Equal,” published in the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Singaporean diplomat-scholar Kishore Mahbubani advances a provocative thesis: the Western sense of civilizational superiority is no longer justified in a multipolar world, and treating all civilizations as equals is both necessary and pragmatic for global stability and cooperation.
Mahbubani’s argument critiques lingering Western hegemony in global discourse and urges a recalibration of international relations that acknowledges the rising influence of non-Western civilizations, particularly those of Asia.
Mahbubani, a seasoned former Singapore ambassador to the United Nations and public intellectual, uses historical comparison and contemporary economic data to dismantle lingering hierarchies of civilizational value. His essay is less an academic treatise than a strategic appeal to Western policymakers: dispense with condescension, recognize the changed global order, and engage other civilizations on equal footing.
Core Argument: Equality of Civilizations in a New Global Order
At the heart of Mahbubani’s essay is the argument that the era of unquestioned Western dominance is over. He emphasizes that Western moral superiority — the idea that Western civilization is inherently superior to others — persists psychologically among Western elites even as its material dominance wanes. Mahbubani’s blunt message is directed especially at the roughly 12% of the world’s population residing in the West: “please get off your moral high horse and start treating other civilizations as your peers.”
Supporting this claim, the essay points to dramatic shifts in global economic power. For instance, when the 21st century began, the European Union’s economy was eight times the size of China’s, a metric often cited implicitly or explicitly to underscore Western preeminence.
Today, EU and Chinese economies are roughly comparable, and China’s is projected to be twice the size by 2050. Likewise, comparing India and the United Kingdom, the Indian economy has surpassed the UK and is expected to be significantly larger by mid-century. These figures are deployed not as triumphalist statistics but to illustrate that the West’s entitlement to global leadership is anachronistic.
Mahbubani distances his thesis from any crude relativism — he does not suggest that all civilizations are identical in values or practice. Rather, he insists that no single civilization now holds the right to define universal norms. In an interconnected world where political, economic, and cultural influence is diffused, Mahbubani’s thesis is that mutual respect and reciprocal dialogue are the only viable foundations for future cooperation.
Contextualizing the Argument: From Western Hegemony to Pluricentric Globalisation
Mahbubani’s argument should be viewed against the backdrop of longstanding debates in international relations theory. In the late 20th century, Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” posited enduring cultural faultlines that might pit civilizations against each other — a view used by many as justification for viewing non-Western cultures as threats.
Mahbubani’s essay implicitly counters that narrative by rejecting hierarchies between civilizations. Rather than anticipating conflict, he calls for acknowledgment of diversity and mutual legitimacy.
Equally, scholars like Mahbubani are responding to the historical legacy of colonialism and Western universalism — frameworks that have implicitly ranked Western norms as the apex of global development. As other civilizations — especially China, India, and regions of the Global South — assert their economic and diplomatic influence, such narratives are increasingly questioned.
Strengths of Mahbubani’s Thesis
1. Empirical Grounding in Global Power Shifts
One of the essay’s strengths is its grounding in empirical economic and geopolitical trends. By highlighting the narrowing gap between Western and non-Western economies, Mahbubani anchors his argument in measurable realities rather than abstract cultural relativism. The economy-focused narrative underscores that assertions of superiority are not merely outdated but increasingly inconsistent with global material conditions.
2. Pragmatic Call for Respectful Engagement
Mahbubani’s plea is strategic and pragmatic rather than purely moral. He does not deny Western achievements; instead, he urges Western actors to adapt to a world where no single civilization can unilaterally set global standards. This reframing is valuable because it alleviates defensive responses and frames equality not as loss but as cooperation in a shared future.
3. Bridging Diplomatic and Intellectual Insights
Drawing on his diplomatic experience, Mahbubani blends high-level policymaking insights with broader civilizational analysis. His voice reaches beyond academia to practitioners of international diplomacy, fostering a dialogue that spans both worlds.
Limitations and Critiques
1. Vague Operationalization
A structural critique of Mahbubani’s essay is that while it compellingly diagnoses a shift in global perceptions, it is less clear on how equality among civilizations should be operationalized in international institutions. Equal treatment in rhetoric is different from equal influence in arenas such as the UN Security Council, IMF, or WTO. The essay stops short of concrete proposals for institutional reform.
2. Oversimplification of Civilizational Diversity
Rejecting hierarchical valuations of civilization risks glossing over substantive differences in governance models, human rights norms, and political traditions. Western critics might argue that treating all civilizations as equal could inadvertently relativize practices that contravene widely shared ethical standards. Mahbubani’s focus on economic parity, while effective in shifting power narratives, may not fully address normative complexities.
3. Underemphasis on Internal Diversity
Civilizations are not monoliths; they contain internal debates, conflicts, and competing value systems. Treating them as unitary actors might obscure intra-civilizational dynamics that are critical to global discourse. Mahbubani’s essay could benefit from integrating a more nuanced view of internal diversity within civilizations.
Towards a Pluralist Global Ethos
“All Civilizations Are Equal” is a timely, provocative contribution to contemporary debates about global order. Kishore Mahbubani’s core message — that Western civilizational dominance is waning and must be replaced with mutual respect and equality — resonates in an era of shifting geopolitical realities. By anchoring his argument in economic trends and diplomatic practice, he invites a reassessment of entrenched assumptions about cultural hierarchy.
The essay’s greatest achievement may be its reframing of global pluralism not as a threat but as an opportunity — a call to cultivate a world where cooperation among civilizations is not predicated on domination but on mutual recognition and shared interest. However, future expansion of this argument would benefit from clearer pathways for institutional reform and greater engagement with normative tensions inherent in civilizational pluralism.
Civilizational Arrogance Is Strategic Suicide: Why the West Must Accept Equality
Ultimately, Mahbubani’s work contributes to an ongoing reimagining of world politics — one that privileges dialogue, respect, and equity over assertion and hierarchy.
All Civilizations Are Equal” is not a polite plea for cultural sensitivity but a hard warning about power, arrogance, and decline. History is unforgiving to civilizations that mistake past dominance for permanent entitlement, and Mahbubani reminds the West that moral superiority is not a renewable resource.
In a world where economic gravity, political confidence, and intellectual energy are shifting east and south, clinging to civilizational hierarchies is not just insulting—it is strategically suicidal. Equality among civilizations is no longer an idealistic slogan; it is a geopolitical necessity. Those who refuse to recognize it will not shape the new world order; they will merely complain about it as others do.
