World

Professor Amitav Acharya outlines future of global order beyond Western dominance

At a recent lecture, Professor Amitav Acharya presented his analysis on the evolution of world order, arguing that Western hegemony is a temporary phase in broader historical patterns and highlighting the emergence of a more pluralistic global system.

By Alex Beauregard | 17 May 2026
Hands with world map symbolicsing connections representing global order

Professor Amitav Acharya of American University outlined a perspective on the future of global civilisation as part of a lecture hosted by the Institute on 13 May 2026. Drawing from his publication The Once and Future World Order: Why Global Civilisation Will Survive The Decline of the West, Acharya presented an analysis that challenges assumptions about the permanence of Western-led international systems.

The book offers a sweeping review of over 5,000 years of civilisations and their impact on world order, focusing on two key themes: how history informs current global affairs, and the nature of evolving international structures. Rather than subscribing to the notion that history merely repeats itself, Acharya suggests history provides a framework for recognising past errors and envisioning alternative futures.

Central to his argument is the idea that global order has always been a shared construct, shaped by multiple civilisations rather than controlled by a single dominant power. He highlights examples from Chinese, Roman, and Islamic civilisations to demonstrate how core principles of order often emerged independently, yet influenced one another through idea exchange and expansion.

Applying his historical analysis to contemporary international relations, Acharya noted a growing acknowledgement among world leaders that the current order is undergoing significant transformation. He questioned the widely held belief in the necessity of American hegemony for global stability, describing global hegemonic dominance as historically exceptional rather than normative.

According to Acharya, the current prominence of the West represents a "blip in history" rather than a permanent state. He emphasised that Western societies themselves have been shaped by ideas and institutions originating from other civilisations, illustrating the interconnectedness that will likely characterise future orders.

During a question and answer session, Acharya addressed concerns regarding the enduring influence of Western norms and the legacy of colonialism on global perspectives. He proposed that recognising the temporality of Western dominance enables important intellectual and cultural shifts, potentially encouraging more inclusive approaches within global academia and diplomacy.

When asked about the shape of future world order, Acharya distinguished between ‘multi-polarity’—a system dominated by several major powers with smaller states playing minor roles—and ‘multi-plexity’, a more diffuse arrangement. Under multi-plexity, decision-making would be less nation-state centric and more inclusive of smaller powers, focusing on cooperation around ideas and problem-solving.

On the role of existing economic organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation, Acharya acknowledged the complexity of integrating these bodies into a new order. He suggested that reforms and supplementary institutions will be necessary to respond to evolving economic realities and maintain effective cooperation.

Addressing governance trends, Acharya introduced the concept of “neo-monarchy” to describe modern political figures—including Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un—who embody elements of monarchical power adapted to contemporary political frameworks. This suggests a diversification of governance models beyond traditional democratic and autocratic classifications.

Professor Acharya's lecture proposed a future international order that is more inclusive, historically informed, and based on shared ideas rather than unilateral dominance. His analysis underscores the possibility of smoother transitions in global power dynamics, avoiding perceptions of decline or collapse and instead focusing on adaptation and cooperation.