Essay Example on Argumentative Response : A World State

I believe that democracy provides the citizenry of any given nation with the freedom and power to exercise their rights and other entitlements within their country's borders. However, as civilization continues to set in, powerful nations are becoming more involved in other countries' affairs. I hold the opinion that; there is no supreme authority in the world that can claim superiority over the other (Wendt, 2011). As prof. Alexander Wendt observes many individual sovereign nation-states organized in anarchy are a form of despotism which is a view that I agree with to a large extent. In this view, I agree with Alexander Wendt that many individual sovereign nation-states organized in anarchy are a form of despotism and a world state will also be a form of despotism.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Classical liberalism depicts an instance of responsiveness to an era of authoritarian rule and oppressive government regimes while cosmopolitan liberalism criticizes the traditional liberal thoughts of overcoming individualism and develop a more open and inclusive open conception. This argumentative essay therefore takes a liberal/cosmopolitan stance. The three main reasons supporting Alexander Wendt’s view consider that despotism from the world state leadership and governance will result into;

• The lack of political freedom in the world state
• The imposition of a tyrannical rule by world state leaders with different visions
• Denial of various patriotic rights for the citizenry of the world state.
• The Imposition of a Tyrannical Rule

In the journal article by Alexander Wendt entitled, "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics" (Wendt, 1992), the scholar critically analyzes the various aspects of political power and international relations. In the Article, Alexander refers to the 3 C's of international relations; coordination complementarity and coherence. For international relations between various member states to become successful, the above three spheres must be met. Concerning complementarity, the states should be able to meet and fulfil the needs of other players. Co-ordination is necessary because the member states must be in a position to work amicably and in unison towards driving themselves to achieve the final goal. Coherence is also equally important because it brings about rationality and also serves as a voice of reason.

In international relations, anarchy is accepted as the basic building block of different international relations theories (Williams, 2004). Many individual sovereign nation-states organized in anarchy are a form of despotism. This is because, these nations and the policymakers of such alliances can be viewed to be amercing power, to become the supreme sovereign authority.

Denial of Patriotic Rights to the Citizenry

A world state will be a form of despotism. Opposition and democracy are among the key pillars in the fight against despotism and any types of tyranny and oppressive regimes. A world state could be viewed as a culmination of power whereby, the state will have the sovereign power and might be too strong to be challenged (Buchanan & Badham, 2020). Democracies are built upon the distribution of power where the governing body is the service provider, while the opposition is the critique of the government that ensures that the various administrative procedures are followed. However, in the presence of a world state, there is the precedent absence of opposition or any voice of reason that will keep the world state in check. Although the country may act in accordance with the stipulated governance frameworks, the people are also entitled to their political rights (Czech, Krausman & Borkhataria, 1998).

Lack of Political Freedom in the World State

With respect to Alexander Wendt views, a world state is the downfall of anarchy. The world state will be the supreme sovereign power and authority that will exercise the rule of governance over the people as well as other rights. A world stare is expected to come up with new means of governance as well as law amendments that will be aimed at the enhancement of the governance process. Through such governance measures, it is the onset of despotism and other despotic leadership regimes. At the early onset of the world state, there may be the observation of public empowerment and better service delivery to the citizenry. However, as time proceeds and new leaders assume to power, then will the face of despotism get revealed.

Conclusion

When individual sovereign states come together to form an anarchic alliance, their sole aim is directed towards the acquisition of power. As despots would do, the initial step is in the hoarding of absolute power to ensure that no opposition would be strong enough to challenge them. Such despotic alliances are an obstacle to the formation of any anarchic partnership and depend on the goals and purpose of the coalition, despots holding onto power on the world’s political scene is a risky approach (Buchanan & Badham, 2020). According to Prof. Alexander Wendt, when individual sovereign nation-states are organized in anarchy, then despots yield absolute power which is the death of democracy. This goes to show that many individual sovereign nation-states organized in anarchy are a form of despotism and a world state will also be a form of despotism.

References

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. An international organization, 46(2), 391-425.

Wendt, A. (2011). The social construction of power politics. Security Studies: A Reader, 46(2), 391-425.

Williams, M. C. (2004). Why ideas matter in international relations: Hans Morgenthau, classical realism, and the moral construction of power politics. An international organization, 58(4), 633-665.

Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2020). Power, politics, and organizational change. SAGE Publications Limited.

Czech, B., Krausman, P. R., & Borkhataria, R. (1998). Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conservation Biology, 12(5), 1103-1112.