Illiberalism Threatens the Future of Global Governance

Illiberalism is on the rise. Numerous established democracies are experiencing backsliding, with leaders refusing to respect democratic processes, weaponizing legal systems against rivals, and even resorting to political violence to cling onto power. Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes—illiberal by definition—are growing in power and influence.

Taken together, illiberal regimes have become important players in international organizations, especially the United Nations (UN). As its General Assembly of 193 states convenes next week in New York, the system of global governance is being increasingly contested by illiberal regimes.

The Challenge to Global Governance and the UN

Illiberal regimes hold views on global governance that conflict with those of liberal democracies. The latter promote democracy, human rights, and economic liberalism within international organizations like the UN because they see them as essential to international peace and security. But illiberal leaders’ priorities are grounded in promoting regime stability and their own ability to rule. This difference in goals presents a central challenge to the UN system today.

Although the UN is an inherently liberal project to promote global peace and security, these norms were always contested by a politically diverse membership. Historically, newly independent post-colonial states gave more weight to self-determination and stability over civil and political rights. But now liberal norms are being contested even more sharply.

Contesting Liberal Norms

A few strategies for contesting liberal norms are apparent. One is reinterpretation. For example, state sovereignty is being reinterpreted amid a fight over the Responsibility to Protect principle that pits liberal interventionists, who view it as a contract with limitations, against illiberal regimes that view sovereignty much more expansively.

Other liberal norms are also being reshaped to suit the needs of autocrats. Russia has waged a campaign within the UN to legitimize its invasion of Ukraine as an operation against Nazism. Meanwhile, China has undergone sustained efforts to redefine democracy, casting its system of single-party rule as “a true democracy that works.”

Illiberals have also directly opposed norms by framing certain rights espoused by liberal international organizations—including women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights—as contrary to traditional values. Likewise, economic liberalization has been challenged by states that wish to protect parts of their economies from market forces and view global economic integration as neither desirable nor inevitable. For example, the UN’s Agenda 21, which considers economic liberalization key to sustainable development, has been opposed by illiberal regimes who want the freedom to intervene in the domestic economy.

Finally, illiberal regimes have also challenged norms by reducing their engagement in international organizations. Rather than working through the UN Security Council, illiberal regimes have increasingly managed security through less restrictive strategic partnerships, such as the Chinese and Russian-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Illiberal governments also withheld and distorted scientific information to stymie the ability of international organizations to govern in areas of pressing concern, such as public health and climate change.

Putting Contestation into Practice

Illiberal regimes are securing support for these ideas through voting coalitions in the UN General Assembly and other multilateral bodies. For example, illiberal coalitions in the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) are voting against targeted resolutions that name and shame their states over poor human rights performances—and turn the tables by criticizing advanced industrial democracies in the HRC’s Universal Periodic Review.

The extent to which illiberal regimes are successful depends on at least four factors. The first is their power and resources within international organizations. Powerful states have long been able to effectively buy votes in the UN General Assembly, and China has strengthened such efforts over the last couple decades. Rising illiberal powers also seek to influence bureaucratic procedures, as China did in 2012 when it succeeded in pushing the International Monetary Fund to reform its surveillance policies.

The second factor is illiberal regimes’ ability to coalesce interest coalitions. Developing countries have long caucused in the UN through formal groupings such as the G77. China and Russia have relied on these voting coalitions, especially the Like-Minded Group, to constrain the international human rights regime and peddle alternative narratives within UN bodies.

The third is their ability to influence formal decision-making procedures. Unanimity or consensus-based decision-making provides opportunities to influence outcomes or obstruct action. The dysfunction of the UN Security Council—rooted in the veto of its permanent members—is well-known, and has become even worse as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Illiberal regimes’ power in deciding the staffing, procedures, and operations of important committees and elected positions within multilateral organizations is the final factor in determining the success of this contestation. Through bureaucratic meddling, they look to secure agenda-setting power, block undesirable proposals, and use organizations’ resources and influence for regime-boosting purposes. China has sought to fill UN leadership positions, including those in charge of the UN Department of Peace Operations and the International Telecommunication Union, so that it can use these bodies to promote Chinese interests.

The Future of Global Governance Is on the Line

The rise of illiberalism poses a challenge to global governance through the UN. It threatens to create decision-making gridlocks, recast key norms, and shift the UN into a more illiberal direction. This risks undermining the UN’s legitimacy—and ultimately its ability to continue to work toward global peace and security.

It remains to be seen how democracies will react to these changes. Countering the illiberal challenge to global governance requires continued cooperation by democracies. Much of this must happen within the UN. But just as illiberal regimes have crafted their own authoritarian regional organizations, liberals may also create their own democratic clubs to build consensus and implement multilateral governance on a smaller scale.

A protracted strategic competition between liberals and illiberals is unfolding within the complex and fragmented institutions of global governance. In response, democracies must understand the political risks of inattention and re-engage with global institutions more forcefully. The stakes could not be higher.

Emilie M. Hafner-Burton is co-director of the Future of Democracy initiative at IGCC, and a professor of political science at UC San Diego. Christina Schneider is co-director of the Future of Democracy initiative at IGCC and professor of political science at UC San Diego.

Thumbnail credit: Basil D Soufi (Flickr)