The Consequences of De-Westernization on the Global Order

Dehshiri, Mohammad Reza; Nourine, Zahra

doi:10.30465/os.2026.52958.2069

The Consequences of De-Westernization on the Global Order

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Mohammad Reza Dehshiri ¹

Zahra Nourine ²

¹ Professor of Political Science, Faculty of International Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tehran, Iran

² PhD candidate in French Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.30465/os.2026.52958.2069

Abstract

Introduction
The third decade of the twenty-first century has witnessed profound and multi-layered transformations in the international system, fundamentally challenging the traditional Western-dominated global order. A series of interconnected crises—including the global financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, demographic pressures, and major geopolitical conflicts such as the war in Ukraine—have exposed structural weaknesses in Western political, economic, and institutional leadership. These developments, alongside events such as the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the reassertion of Russia and China as major global actors, have accelerated a broader process commonly referred to as de-Westernization.
De-Westernization does not merely signify a relative decline in Western power; rather, it reflects a deeper erosion of the legitimacy of Western norms, institutions, and governance models. It also underscores the rising prominence of alternative development models and cultural frameworks that challenge the universality of liberal-democratic ideals. Simultaneously, it highlights the growing agency of emerging powers and the Global South in shaping global political, economic, and cultural processes. In particular, regional organizations, such as the BRICS, the African Union, and ASEAN, are increasingly asserting themselves as platforms for collective action and normative contestation, signaling a shift toward a more decentralized and pluralistic global order. This article seeks to answer the central question: What are the consequences of de-Westernization for the global order? The main hypothesis argues that de-Westernization, instead of producing a stable and emancipatory global order, is more likely to intensify great-power competition, militarization, and systemic instability.

Materials & Methods
This study adopts a descriptive-analytical research design grounded in qualitative analysis. Data were collected from secondary sources, including scholarly articles, academic books, and reports published by reputable international institutions. The analytical framework is informed by power transition theory and world-systems analysis, which together provide a lens for understanding hegemonic decline, shifts in global legitimacy, and the emergence of alternative centers of power. Special attention is paid to the interplay between structural economic transformations, technological innovation, and the diffusion of political influence. By integrating theoretical insights with empirical observations, the article examines both the structural drivers of de-Westernization and its political, economic, and normative implications for the evolving global order.

Discussion & Results
The analysis reveals that de-Westernization is driven by a combination of external and internal factors. Externally, the rise of emerging powers—particularly in Asia and the Global South—has redistributed economic capabilities and geopolitical influence. Internally, Western societies face mounting challenges, including political polarization, economic inequality, declining trust in institutions, and contradictions between proclaimed liberal values and actual foreign policy practices. Moreover, the persistence of structural vulnerabilities, such as energy dependence, technological gaps, and social fragmentation, has limited the capacity of Western states to maintain cohesive leadership.
The results indicate that de-Westernization has produced several key consequences for the global order. First, it has facilitated the emergence of the Global South as a collective actor capable of contesting Western dominance and influencing global agendas, particularly in areas such as sustainable development, trade regulation, and digital governance. Second, it has reinforced a form of competitive multilateralism, characterized by overlapping institutions, shifting alliances, and fragmented decision-making processes. Third, while this diversification of power has increased pluralism and offered new opportunities for inclusive diplomacy, it has also heightened uncertainty, intensified geopolitical rivalries, and weakened the coherence of global governance, particularly in addressing transnational crises such as climate change, economic instability, and security threats. Furthermore, the erosion of normative consensus has led to divergent interpretations of international law, human rights, and security norms, creating potential friction points between different regional and ideological blocs.

Conclusion
De-Westernization constitutes one of the defining dynamics of contemporary international relations. Its significance lies not only in constraining Western hegemony but also in reshaping the structural and normative foundations of the global order. However, the findings of this study suggest that de-Westernization is inherently ambivalent: it opens opportunities for greater inclusivity, justice, and representation, while simultaneously generating instability, rivalry, and governance deficits.
The central challenge for the future is not merely to reduce Western dominance, but to guide de-Westernization toward a more humane, equitable, and sustainable global order. Achieving this outcome requires coordinated efforts by emerging powers, meaningful reform of international institutions, and active participation by social and political movements. Additionally, fostering normative dialogue, strengthening regional governance mechanisms, and promoting cross-cultural understanding are crucial to mitigating conflict and enhancing resilience in the global system. Without such mechanisms, the global system risks remaining trapped in a state of competitive multipolarity marked by uncertainty, persistent instability, and episodic crises, undermining the prospects for long-term peace and cooperative problem-solving.

Keywords

De-Westernization

Multipolar world order

Decline of Western hegemony

Emerging powers

Great-power competition

Achcar, G. (2021, April 6). "How to avoid the anti-imperialism of fools." The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/anti-imperialism-syria-progressive/

Ashraf Nazari, A., & Salimi, B. (2016). "Far-right populism in European democracies: A case study of France (Populism-e rast-e efrati dar demokrasi-haye Orupayi: Motale‘eh-ye moredi-ye Faranceh)." Government Studies (Dowlat Pazhouhi), 1(4), 157–185. [In Persian]

Billion, D., & Ventura, C. (2020, April). "Protest movements in the world: Causes, dynamics, and limits. Algeria, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Catalonia, Hong Kong, Egypt, Ecuador, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan." IRIS. https://www.afd.fr

Billion, D., & Ventura, C. (2021). Decolonizing the West: Rethinking the world order. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.
Brisson, T. (2025). The de-westernization of knowledge. Paris: La Découverte.

Chakravartty, P., & Roy, S. (2023). "De-westernizing political communication theories and research: More perspectives, new directions." Political Communication Report, Fall 2023(28). http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-41239

Chomsky, N. (2002). Understanding power: The indispensable Chomsky. New York: The New Press.
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. (n.d.). "Protest movements in the world: Summary of major 21st-century issues." FES New York. https://ny.fes.de

Ghanbarlou, A. (2019). "A critique of neoliberalism from the perspective of the Frankfurt School (Naqd-e neoliberalism az manzar-e maktab-e Frankfurt)." Fundamental Westology (Gharbshenasi-ye Bonyadi), 10(1), 175–198. [In Persian]
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Glassman, J., Park, B. G., & Choi, Y. J. (2008). "Failed internationalism and social movement decline: The cases of South Korea and Thailand." Critical Asian Studies, 40(3), 339–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672710802274110

Keshtiban, A. E., Callaghan, G., & Harris, J. (2021). "Leadership in leaderless organizations: Leaderlessness in social movements." Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32, 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21427

Khalaji, A. (2015). "The world-system model and the analysis of social movements (Olgu-ye nezam-e jahani va tahlil-e jonbeshhaye ejtema‘i)." Contemporary Political Essays (Jostarha-ye Siyasi-ye Mo‘aser), 6(16), 41–61. [In Persian]

Kugler, J., & Organski, A. F. K. (1989). "The power transition: A retrospective and prospective evaluation." In M. Midlarsky (Ed.), Handbook of War Studies (pp. 171–194). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Lemke, D. (1997). "The continuation of history: Power transition theory and the end of the Cold War." Journal of Peace Research, 34(1), 23–36.

Merics. (2025, July 31). "China and Russia are using the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to push alternative global order." MERICS. https://merics.org/en/comment/china-and-russia-are-using-shanghai-cooperation-organization-push-alternative-global-order

Micheletti, P. (2010). "Decolonizing does not mean renouncing." Humanitaire, 24. http://journals.openedition.org/humanitaire/691

Nezami Pour, G., Najafi Siyar, R., & Asayesh Javid, A. (2025). "Driving forces shaping the emerging global order (Pishranhaye ta’sirgozar bar nazm-e jahani-ye pish-e ru)." Interdisciplinary Studies of Strategic Knowledge (Motale‘at-e Beynreshtei-ye Danesh-e Rahbordi), 15(58), 107–134. [In Persian]

Organski, A. F. K. (1958). World politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Qanbarloo, A. (2019). "Critique of neoliberalism from the Frankfurt School perspective [In Persian]." Gharb Shenasi-e Bonyadi, 10(1), 175–198.
Saeedi, R.-A. (2020). "The implications of de-Westernization of international relations for regional studies (Payamadhaye gharb-zodayi az ravabet-e beynolmelal bar motale‘at-e mantaghei)." Political Knowledge (Danesh-e Siyasi), 31(16), 191–218. [In Persian]

Sedigh Batahayi, M. E. (2015). "The nightmare of underdevelopment in developing countries: A theoretical look at the economic policies of developed countries with emphasis on hegemony (Kabous-e towse‘e-nayaftegi-ye keshvarhaye dar hal-e towse‘eh: Negahi teoriq be siyasathaye eqtesadi-ye keshvarhaye towse‘e-yafteh ba ta’kid bar hegemon)." Quarterly Journal of Political Science (Faslnameh-ye Takhasosi-ye Olum-e Siyasi), 11(31), 93–114. [In Persian]

Sazmand, B. (2024). "The Global South and BRICS: Why Indonesia did not join BRICS (Jonub-e Jahani va BRICS: Cherayi-ye napeyvastan-e Indonezi be BRICS)." Country

Studies (Motale‘at-e Keshvarha), 2(2), 331–351. [In Persian]
Secen, S. (2025, July 23). "Competitive multilateralism and the future of global governance." E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2025/07/23/competitive-multilateralism-and-the-future-of-global-governance/

Shiroudi, M. (2004). "Liberal democracy under critique (Liberal demokrasi dar buteh-ye naqd)." Hosoun, 2(1), 132–162. [In Persian]

Vinhas, S. (2010). "Decolonization, viewed from the field." Humanitaire, 24. http://journals.openedition.org/humanitaire/708

Vahabi, M. (2008). "The global financial crisis and the failure of the (American) neoliberal capitalist model (Bohran-e mali-ye jahani va shekast-e olgu-ye sarmayedari-ye neoliberal [Amrikayi])." Political–Economic Information (Ettela‘at-e Siyasi–Eghtesadi), 23(253–254), 4–33. [In Persian]

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.

Yu, S. (2025, August 28). "“The Tianjin moment”: How Trump’s tariffs are shaping a new global order (“Lahzat-e Tianjin”… chegunegi-ye sheklgiri-ye nazm-e jahani-ye jadid tavasot-e ta‘rifat-e Trump)." Al Majalla. https://www.majalla.com/node/327140 [In Arabic]

Zarif, M. J., Sajjadpour, S. K., & Molaei, E. (2019). "The transitional era of international relations in the post-Western world (Douran-e gozar-e ravabet-e beynolmelal dar jahan-e pasagharbi)." Tehran: Center for Political and International Studies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [In Persian]