Ubuntu & Global Power Structures- Can Ubuntu realistically influence a world order built on power asymmetry?

 

The modern international system is structurally hierarchical. Power is unevenly distributed across military capability, technological sophistication, financial leverage, and narrative dominance. From the institutional architecture of the United Nations to the weighted voting systems of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, global governance reflects asymmetry rather than parity. Within such a system, the question arises: can a relational ethical philosophy like Ubuntu meaningfully influence a world order structured around strategic competition and material power?

To answer this, one must clarify both terms. Ubuntu, often summarized as “I am because we are,” is not merely cultural sentiment. It is an ontological claim about personhood and interdependence. It asserts that dignity is relational, that community precedes individualism, and that legitimacy derives from reciprocity. Global power structures, by contrast, are largely shaped by realist assumptions: states pursue interests, secure advantage, and preserve sovereignty within an anarchic system.

At first glance, Ubuntu appears normatively admirable but strategically naïve. However, such a dismissal may underestimate how global orders actually evolve. Power systems are not static; they are sustained not only by coercion but by legitimacy. And legitimacy is ethical.

1. The Structure of Global Asymmetry

The current world order remains influenced by post-1945 arrangements, particularly the Security Council structure of the United Nations Security Council, where veto authority entrenches geopolitical hierarchy. Economic governance mechanisms—such as conditional lending by the International Monetary Fund—shape policy autonomy in developing states. Military alliances like NATO reinforce bloc-based security structures.

In such an environment, influence is typically measured in:

  • Hard power (military capability)

  • Structural power (control over finance, trade rules, technology standards)

  • Discursive power (control over global narratives)

Ubuntu does not operate in any of these conventional metrics. It does not deploy aircraft carriers or control reserve currencies. Its influence, if any, must operate differently—through normative transformation.

2. Normative Power vs. Material Power

Global systems are sustained not only by force but by shared ideas. Liberal democracy, for example, spread not solely through military victory but through ideological appeal and institutional embedding. Concepts such as human rights gained traction because they became embedded in international law and discourse.

Similarly, the reconciliation process in post-apartheid South Africa—most notably through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission under leaders like Desmond Tutu—demonstrated Ubuntu as a political ethic. Rather than pursuing retributive justice, the framework emphasized restorative accountability and communal healing.

That process did not dismantle global asymmetry. But it demonstrated that alternative moral logics can shape political outcomes. It influenced global transitional justice debates and reframed reconciliation beyond punishment.

This is the first realistic pathway for Ubuntu: shaping norms rather than structures.

3. Ubuntu as Soft Power

Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power refers to the ability to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion. Ubuntu can function as soft power if articulated as a coherent philosophical alternative to hyper-individualism and zero-sum geopolitics.

In an era defined by climate crisis, pandemics, and transnational supply chains, interdependence is no longer optional—it is empirical reality. Ubuntu’s relational ontology aligns closely with global public goods theory: security, climate stability, and health are indivisible.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine nationalism exposed structural inequalities. A global order guided by Ubuntu would prioritize equitable access, shared research, and collective risk mitigation. While current institutions fell short, the crisis revealed the limits of unilateralism.

Ubuntu’s relevance increases precisely because asymmetry generates instability. Extreme inequality produces migration pressures, conflict spillovers, and systemic risk. Thus, even powerful states have a strategic interest in cooperative frameworks.

Ubuntu can therefore function as a legitimizing discourse for:

  • Reforming global financial governance

  • Expanding representation in multilateral institutions

  • Promoting equitable technology transfer

It does not replace power politics—but it reframes strategic interests as shared survival.

4. Structural Constraints

However, realism demands caution. Global power asymmetry persists because it benefits dominant actors. Institutions rarely reform themselves voluntarily. Calls for restructuring the veto system within the United Nations Security Council have stalled for decades.

Moreover, normative language can be co-opted. Humanitarian rhetoric has at times been used to justify selective interventions. Ubuntu, if reduced to branding rather than policy, risks similar dilution.

There is also a practical question: who operationalizes Ubuntu? Philosophies require institutional carriers. Without state coalitions, regional blocs, or transnational movements embedding Ubuntu into diplomatic practice, it remains abstract.

African regional bodies such as the African Union provide one possible institutional platform. If Ubuntu were integrated into continental foreign policy frameworks—prioritizing mediation, collective security, and economic solidarity—it could incrementally shape negotiation norms.

Yet influence requires cohesion. Fragmented states cannot project normative power effectively.

5. Ubuntu and Multipolarity

The global system is shifting toward multipolarity. Emerging powers challenge Western dominance, but this does not automatically produce justice. It may simply redistribute asymmetry.

Ubuntu’s opportunity lies here: in shaping the moral vocabulary of a multipolar order. If rising powers replicate extractive hierarchies, asymmetry persists under new management. But if alternative regional coalitions articulate relational ethics in trade, debt negotiations, and climate diplomacy, they can influence agenda-setting.

For instance, debt restructuring debates could incorporate principles of shared responsibility rather than punitive conditionality. Climate negotiations could prioritize historical accountability and future solidarity.

Ubuntu reframes negotiations from transactional bargaining to relational accountability.

6. Ethical Influence as Strategic Leverage

Can ethics influence power? Historically, yes—but slowly and indirectly. Anti-colonial movements reshaped global norms over decades. Human rights discourse altered sovereignty doctrines. Norm shifts precede institutional redesign.

Ubuntu’s impact would likely occur in three stages:

  1. Discursive adoption – integration into academic, diplomatic, and civil society frameworks.

  2. Policy experimentation – application in regional mediation, restorative justice models, and cooperative economic initiatives.

  3. Institutional embedding – codification in treaties, charters, and multilateral agreements.

None of these eliminate asymmetry immediately. But they constrain excesses and create moral benchmarks against which behavior is judged.

Legitimacy matters even to powerful states. Reputation affects alliances, investment flows, and domestic stability. Ubuntu strengthens the normative argument that power without relational responsibility is illegitimate.

7. Limits and Realism

Ubuntu cannot override military deterrence or economic coercion on its own. States facing existential threats prioritize survival. Moreover, in highly competitive domains—cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, strategic minerals—zero-sum calculations persist.

Therefore, Ubuntu is unlikely to replace realism. Instead, it can temper it. It can encourage cooperative security frameworks, equitable economic partnerships, and conflict resolution mechanisms that reduce systemic volatility.

The more interconnected the world becomes, the more costly unilateral domination becomes. Ubuntu aligns with this structural reality.

Conclusion: Influence Through Moral Architecture

Ubuntu cannot instantly dismantle a world order built on asymmetry. It lacks armies, currencies, and veto power. However, world orders endure not only through coercion but through moral architecture. When legitimacy erodes, systems destabilize.

Ubuntu offers a relational ethic suited to an interdependent age. Its realism lies not in confronting asymmetry head-on with force, but in reshaping the normative foundations that justify hierarchy.

If embedded in diplomacy, regional integration, and global reform movements, Ubuntu can incrementally influence how power is exercised—even if it cannot eliminate power differentials.

Thus, the realistic answer is nuanced:

Ubuntu cannot abolish asymmetry.
But it can redefine how asymmetry is justified, constrained, and morally evaluated.

And over time, that may be the deeper transformation.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why are machine tools considered the “mother industry” for industrialization, and what does this mean for Africa and other developing economies?

Image
  Machine Tools: The “Mother Industry” of Industrialization and What It Means for Africa and Developing Economies When economists, engineers, and policymakers speak of machine tools as the “mother industry” , they refer to the pivotal role these tools play in building every other industry. Just as mothers give birth to life, machine tools give birth to manufacturing. They are the foundation upon which industrial capacity rests, and without them, no nation can claim full industrial independence. For Africa and other developing economies striving for sustainable growth, this understanding is critical. What Are Machine Tools? Machine tools are mechanical devices used to cut, shape, drill, grind, or otherwise process metal and other hard materials into components. Examples include lathes, milling machines, grinders, presses, and CNC (computer numerical control) machines. These tools are essential for producing the parts that go into cars, airplanes, energy systems, agricultural machine...
Read more

It's now clear the west particularly America and European elites have been using democracy and capitalism to control and create sanctions on the developing and poor countries

Image
  To assess it rigorously, we need to separate three analytical layers: Normative ideology (democracy, capitalism as principles) Policy practice (how powerful states implement them externally) Geopolitical power behavior (how dominant states act regardless of ideology) Let’s examine this carefully. 1. Democracy as Principle vs. Democracy as Instrument Democracy, as theorized by thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu , is grounded in: Popular sovereignty Rule of law Civil liberties Accountability However, critics argue that major powers — especially the United States and blocs like the European Union — sometimes apply democracy selectively in foreign policy. Examples often cited: Support for authoritarian allies when strategically convenient. Sanctions justified on “democratic grounds” but aligned with geopolitical interests. Military interventions framed as democracy promotion. This suggests inconsistency — not necessarily that democracy its...
Read more

Why Petrol Cars Still Dominate in Most of the World—Despite EV Hype

Image
The global narrative around electric vehicles (EVs) suggests an unstoppable march toward an all-electric future. Headlines highlight rising EV sales in wealthy countries, bold government bans on petrol cars, and ambitious climate pledges from automakers. Yet step outside a few high-income markets and the picture changes dramatically. In most of the world—across Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, and large parts of Eastern Europe—petrol (and diesel) cars continue to dominate roads, sales, and consumer preferences. This persistence is not simply due to resistance to change or lack of awareness. It reflects deep structural realities: economics, infrastructure, energy systems, industrial capacity, and social behavior. Understanding why petrol cars remain dominant requires moving beyond hype and examining how mobility actually works for the majority of the global population. 1. Cost: The Decisive Barrier The most immediate and decisive factor is price . EVs remain significantl...
Read more