The unifying and divisive potential of the ideological doctrines in the interstate relations systems

The article utilizes the Stephen Walt’s idea that the ideological projects aimed at uniting states into political blocs actually possess built-in divisive potential that can be activated by the power ambitions of the national elites. The authors support this hypothesis by referring to the facts related to the early attempts to unite Europe on the basis of the Christian monarchic solidarity in the first half of the 19^th century (the Holy Alliance of the Russian Emperor Alexander I), as well as to the efforts by Egypt and Syria to create the United Arab Republic (UAR) and to the challenges that the Soviet leadership faced while trying to establish the system of the socialist states that would be united on the common ideological principles in the second half of the 20th century. The authors also resort to Mark Haas’s theory that in an ideologically multi-polar international system, an “under-balancing” (ineffective balancing) may arise, where individual states are not able to effectively determine who is their most sworn enemy and largely prefer the “buck-passing” strategy instead of establishing alliances or increasing military expenditures. However, some states may prefer to form a coalition against another state if it simultaneously poses the greatest ideological and military threat to them. The authors contribute to this theoretical construct by shedding some additional light on the way the states actually identify one or another ideological project as the most acute threat. Building the argument on the notion that each ruling elite deems the political survival as the paramount goal, they argue that some ideology will be considered as a serious threat if it directly challenges the rulers’ legitimation narrative or (less likely) calls for a revision of the approach to the redistribution of public goods. However, apart from being radical, such an ideology must also have the potential to become widespread and be supported by the population. In order to show the prudency of this claim, the authors analyze the paradox well known among the experts on Middle-East politics: the absence of a large Sunni coalition against Iran, which should have emerged following a realistic logic of the balance of power. This paper shows that the states capable of forming this coalition consider various interpretations of the Sunni ideology more dangerous than the Shia ideology represented by Iran.

1. Acemoğlu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2015), Pochemu odni strany bogatye, a drugie bednye: proiskhozhdenie vlasti, protsvetaniya i nishchety [Why some nations are rich and others fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty], AST, Moscow, Russia. (Mirovoi bestseller)

2. Burova, A.N. (2014), “Political portrait of Gamal Abdel Nasser: conflict of interpretations in Egyptian political discourse”, RSUH/RGGU Bulletin, “Political Science. History. International Relations. Area Studies. Oriental Studies” Series, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 204–209.

3. Dawisha, A. (2016), Arab nationalism in the 20th century: From triumph to despair, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

4. Efimov, A.V. and Tarle, E.V. (1941), “From the creation of the Holy Alliance to the July Revolution (1815–1830)”, in Potemkin, V.P., ed., Istoriya diplomatii [History of diplomacy], vol. 1, Sotsekgiz, Moscow, USSR, pp. 385–406.

5. Gause, F.G. (2017), “Ideologies, alignments, and under-balancing in the new Middle East Cold War”, Political Science and Politics, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 672–675.

6. Haas, M.L. (2005), The ideological origins of great power politics, 1789–1989, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA.

7. Haas, M.L. (2012), The clash of ideologies: Middle Eastern politics and American security, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

8. Haas, M.L. (2021), “When do ideological enemies ally?”, International Security, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 104–146.

9. Haas, M.L. (2022), Frenemies: When ideological enemies ally, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.

10. Holsti, K.J. (1991), Peace and war: Armed conflicts and international order, 1648–1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, USA.

11. Hoxha, E. (1985), “Eurocommunism is anti-communism”, in Hoxha E. Selected works, vol. 5: November 1976 – June 1980, 8 Nentori, Tirana, Albania, pp. 859–1062.

12. LeDonne, J.P. (1997), The Russian Empire and the world, 1700–1917: The geopolitics of expansion and containment, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

13. Luthi, L.M. (2008), The Sino-Soviet split: Cold War in the Communist world, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

14. Manheim, K. (1976), Ideologiya i utopiya [Ideology and utopia], Institut nauchnoi informatsii po obshchestvennym naukam AN SSSR, Moscow, USSR.

15. Schroeder, P. (1994), “Historical reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory”, International Security, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 108–148.

16. Tsygankov, A.P. (2012), Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in international relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, USA.

17. Unkovski-Korica, V. (2016), The economic struggle for power in Tito’s Yugoslavia: From World War II to non-alignment, I.B. Tauris, London, UK, New York, USA.

18. Walt, S.M. (1985), “Alliance formation and the balance of world power”, International Security, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3–43.