Would Great Powers Accept Relational Accountability Over Strategic Dominance?

 

At the core of international politics lies a persistent tension: are great powers primarily guardians of order or maximizers of advantage? The modern state system, especially since 1945, has been structured around strategic dominance—military deterrence, economic leverage, technological supremacy, and geopolitical positioning. Relational accountability, by contrast, demands that powerful actors accept responsibility for how their actions affect weaker states and the broader global community. It requires constraint, reciprocity, and moral transparency.

The critical question is not whether relational accountability is ethically desirable. It is whether great powers—given structural incentives—would rationally accept it over dominance.

1. The Logic of Strategic Dominance

Great powers operate within an anarchic international system. There is no global sovereign capable of enforcing universal rules. Institutions such as the United Nations exist, but enforcement ultimately depends on member states—especially the most powerful ones.

The structure of the United Nations Security Council, where five permanent members possess veto authority, institutionalizes dominance. This design reflects a realist bargain: stability is preserved by accommodating the strongest actors.

From a strategic standpoint, dominance provides:

  • Security buffers

  • Influence over global norms

  • Access to resources and markets

  • Control over financial and technological standards

No state voluntarily relinquishes such advantages without compensating gains. Historically, dominant powers—from the United Kingdom during the 19th century to the United States after World War II—have structured international rules in ways that align with their interests, even while promoting universalist rhetoric.

Strategic dominance is not merely ambition; it is insurance against vulnerability.

2. What Relational Accountability Would Require

Relational accountability goes beyond compliance with international law. It demands:

  • Acknowledgment of historical externalities (colonial legacies, economic distortions)

  • Equitable participation in decision-making structures

  • Restraint in unilateral interventions

  • Fair burden-sharing in global crises

For example, equitable climate responsibility would require historically high-emitting states to finance adaptation and technology transfer for developing countries. Fair debt restructuring would require lenders to share losses rather than impose austerity conditions.

Such accountability would reshape power asymmetry from entitlement to stewardship.

However, this shift challenges entrenched incentives. Dominant states benefit from structural privilege. Relational accountability redistributes not only resources but narrative authority.

3. Historical Precedents: Conditional Acceptance

Great powers have accepted forms of accountability—but usually under specific conditions:

A. When Accountability Enhances Legitimacy

After World War II, the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank reflected recognition that economic instability threatened global order. These institutions embedded cooperative principles, yet voting power remained weighted.

Here, accountability was selective. It stabilized the system without dismantling hierarchy.

B. When Costs of Dominance Become Excessive

Imperial overstretch historically compels recalibration. The Suez Crisis of 1956 exposed limits to British and French unilateralism. Similarly, protracted conflicts can diminish public support for dominance strategies.

When dominance becomes economically or politically unsustainable, relational approaches gain appeal—not out of altruism, but necessity.

C. When Reputation Matters

Great powers operate within a reputational ecosystem. Soft power influences alliances, investment, and diplomatic influence. Perceived irresponsibility can isolate even militarily strong states.

Relational accountability, in this context, becomes a tool of strategic image management.

4. Structural Barriers to Acceptance

Despite conditional precedents, several constraints inhibit full adoption of relational accountability:

Security Competition

Emerging multipolar dynamics—especially between the United States and China—intensify zero-sum calculations. Technological domains such as AI, semiconductors, and rare earth supply chains are viewed through national security lenses.

In such environments, voluntary restraint may be perceived as weakness.

Domestic Political Incentives

Political leaders must satisfy domestic constituencies. Voters often prioritize national prosperity and security over abstract global justice. Accepting relational accountability may be framed internally as concession or loss.

Institutional Entrenchment

Global financial and security institutions reflect post-war distributions of power. Reforming voting rights or veto authority would dilute entrenched privilege—an unlikely move absent overwhelming pressure.

5. Incentives for Change

Despite barriers, several structural trends make relational accountability increasingly rational:

Interdependence

Global supply chains, digital infrastructure, climate systems, and pandemics transcend borders. Dominance does not prevent transnational spillovers. Cooperative frameworks reduce systemic risk.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that health security is indivisible. Vaccine nationalism produced short-term advantage but prolonged global vulnerability.

Economic Interconnectivity

Even rivals remain economically entangled. Financial sanctions, trade wars, and decoupling strategies impose reciprocal costs. Overuse of coercive tools can accelerate alternative institutional formations.

Legitimacy in a Multipolar World

As emerging powers gain influence, legitimacy becomes competitive terrain. States that demonstrate relational responsibility may attract broader coalitions.

In this sense, accountability can function as strategic leverage rather than moral sacrifice.

6. Degrees of Acceptance: A Spectrum

The realistic outcome is unlikely to be a binary shift from dominance to accountability. Instead, expect gradations:

  1. Symbolic Accountability – rhetorical commitments without structural reform.

  2. Selective Accountability – cooperation in low-threat domains (climate, health).

  3. Conditional Accountability – negotiated concessions in exchange for stability.

  4. Embedded Accountability – institutionalized reforms reflecting shared governance.

Most great powers currently operate between stages one and two.

Progress toward deeper accountability depends on coordinated pressure from middle powers, regional blocs, and civil society networks. If relational norms become embedded in trade agreements, climate accords, or development financing criteria, they gradually constrain unilateralism.

7. The Strategic Case for Accountability

Relational accountability can enhance long-term dominance by:

  • Reducing backlash and insurgent resistance

  • Enhancing alliance cohesion

  • Lowering systemic volatility

  • Preserving institutional credibility

Short-term dominance often generates long-term instability. Excessive coercion can catalyze counterbalancing coalitions.

Therefore, great powers may accept relational accountability not as surrender, but as risk management.

The decisive variable is whether leaders perceive accountability as compatible with security. If framed as mutually reinforcing—stability through shared responsibility—adoption becomes strategically coherent.

8. Limits: Power Rarely Self-Negates

Nonetheless, realism cautions against over-optimism. Power historically yields only under constraint—military parity, economic interdependence, or sustained normative pressure.

Absent such forces, dominance remains the default.

Relational accountability is most likely to advance where:

  • Power balances approach parity

  • Global crises impose shared vulnerability

  • Normative narratives reshape public expectations

Without these conditions, dominant states revert to unilateral advantage.

Conclusion: Acceptance Through Calculation, Not Conversion

Great powers are unlikely to abandon strategic dominance out of moral awakening. However, they may integrate relational accountability when it aligns with stability, legitimacy, and long-term security.

The question, therefore, is not whether dominance disappears. It is whether accountability becomes embedded within dominance as a governing constraint.

In a highly interconnected world, unchecked dominance generates instability that even the powerful cannot contain. Relational accountability, properly institutionalized, offers a pragmatic hedge against systemic breakdown.

Thus, the realistic answer is conditional:

Great powers will accept relational accountability—
not as a replacement for strategic dominance,
but as a calibrated adaptation to preserve it.

The future of global order depends on whether accountability becomes a structural expectation rather than a voluntary concession.


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