Political Science

What does Ferguson mean by the term apolarity How does this differ from uni-, bi-, multi-polarity Do you agree that it constitutes a more dangerous world condition

Ferguson (2004) describes apolarity as the absence of a global hegemonic power. Thus its opposite, unipolarity, is the reign of a single superpower over global affairs, which many argue exists now with the US holding this title. Bipolarity is the rival of two superpowers over world domination, such as the state of global affairs during the Cold War between the US and the USSR. Multipolarity refers to a balance of power between multiple superpowers, such as sixteenth century Europe under England, Spain, and France. After describing these power possibilities, Ferguson further argues that an apolar world is inherently more dangerous than one with a single superpower at the helm.

Ferguson supports his argument with an example from history as well as his prediction on future international relations. He looks to the period after the fall of the Roman Empire in the ninth and tenth centuries as a historical apolar example. The result, he remarks, was the flourishing of small entities, religious fanaticism, and religious-influenced political controversies and violence. He predicts an upcoming power vacuum sometime early in the twenty-first century based on the inability of the US to maintain its unipolar status the aging of Old Europe the potential economic failure of China and the dissolution of the Muslim world as a political bloc. He suggests that in this apolar world, chaos, increased levels of violence and stronger adherence to religion will devastate the planet.

I disagree with Ferguson  I do not foresee a dangerous apolar world in our near future. If the past is an indicator, an apolar world will only be temporary and fairly quickly replaced by the reign of one or more superpowers. Power vacuums are few in number, as even Ferguson admits, and they never last very long. Also, Ferguson argues that an apolar world will return us all to the Dark Ages. What he seems to misunderstand is that the Dark Ages didnt affect the entire globe, but rather Europe alone. Indeed, other countries experienced Golden Ages at the same period, including the Islamic civilization, the West African Trade kingdoms, and the Mayan civilization. While chaos, anarchy, and violence plagued Europe, quite the opposite flourished in Africa, the Middle East, and Central America. I think Ferguson overstates the potential for global disruption in the absence of a hegemonic power. Indeed, there most likely will be violence, perhaps even a higher rate of religious devotion, but I cannot agree that the world will crumble without the rule of one over the many.