Abstract
Despite a reduction in support for US global leadership (and an apparent reduction of desire to provide it), it remains unlikely that we will have a traditionally conceived of power transition where one power cedes global predominance to a challenger any time soon. Although power shifts really are occurring with more actors able and willing to provide leadership roles, this does not presage the onset of a multipolar order; at least as polar orders are typically understood. Rather, we see the transition to an order with multiple sites of authority that lacks the fixed and stable forms of alliances normally associated with polarity. David Mitrany’s emphasis on the importance of functionalism might not provide a blueprint for the future, but does provide a way into thinking about non-polar forms of global governance, different and multiple sites of authority, and different forms of leadership within this global order. It also adds to the study of the capability and willingness of putative leaders, the importance of acceptance and followership in international relations.
Highlights
1 Introduction In A Working Peace System, first published in 1943,1 David Mitrany laid out a vision for a post-World War II global order where political differences should be put aside in the search for effective forms of transnational governance that would not repeat the errors of the past
While Mitrany was writing in a different era, had limited practical policy influence, and might be seen to have been rather utopian in his thinking, his work helps us think about the nature of the current global order in three main ways
We might be in an interregnum before the creation of a new polar world order under new leadership
Summary
In A Working Peace System, first published in 1943,1 David Mitrany laid out a vision for a post-World War II global order where political differences should be put aside in the search for effective forms of transnational governance that would not repeat the errors of the past. Coming into being through formal legal treaties and agreements, they would be by their very nature closed and rigid organizations that would be unable to deal with real world technical problems that instead required pragmatism and flexibility that spanned political divides They would be: rigid in framework, whether geographical or ideological; rigid in its constitution, which has to be formal and unchallenged; rigid in its general life, because of the limits and obstacles the constitution places in the path of fresh common action (Mitrany 1966, 155–6). Rather than fixed bloc-type alliances, we seem to be witnessing the rise of multiple, overlapping and fluid constellations of power and interests that vary based on the specific (functional in Mitrany’s words) issue at hand When it comes to leadership, rather than seeking a single global leader—either actual or putative—we instead need to focus on who has the capacity, desire and legitimacy to lead on any given policy area. It requires us to focus on how and why others attach themselves to these putative leaders; or put another way, an essential component of studying leadership is to study the sources of followership
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
