In international relations, it is often noted that an assertive hegemon can act as a stabilizing force and provide fundamental conditions for prosperous political and economic interactions amongst its “subjects”. Many theorists write admiringly about the benefits of the Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, or a relatively new phenomenon – Pax Americana. According to this approach, which is known as
hegemonic stability theory
, the dominant state (the hegemon), by virtue of its “preponderance of power” establishes an order that promotes its own interests but also provides international stability. Smaller states cannot go long on their own in the conflictual environment of an international political system and face the need to join with a dominant state that provides security and stability. However, this system does not allow those states to easily make choices between rival hegemons.
Mostly the geographic location limits the scope of geopolitical maneuvers of smaller states and forces them to submit to the hegemony of the state that is the unchallenged dominant power of the region in question. In order for smaller states to benefit from this hegemony, the dominant state must develop itself continuously in all the important spheres – primarily, the economy and military. The prosperity of the hegemon can spill over in the system and benefit the countries under its control. The US hegemony over the countries of the NATO is an excellent example of how countries can benefit from hegemonic stability. It is due first and foremost to this fact that most countries in former communist region have sought membership to NATO which is undoubtedly dominated by the United States. On the contrary, when the hegemon “imposed” by the geographic and geopolitical realities is politically corrupted and economically debilitating, the countries that are subject to this hegemony encounter many troubles.
The Search of the South Caucasian Nations for a “Better” Hegemon
The South Caucasus – the region that hosts three former Soviet states – Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia – is a region that has been under the hegemony of its northern neighbor Russia for over two centuries. This hegemony benefitted the South Caucasian countries in some periods – particularly in the end of the 19th century and for a while after World War II. Nevertheless, the countries sought independence from the Russia – dominated Soviet Union in the early 1990s due to growing ethnic conflicts, economic decline, political corruption, amongst other reasons because the hegemon failed to provide stability and prosperity. In the aftermath of gaining independence, the South Caucasian countries attempted to join forces with the United States that was economically stronger, politically more democratic and militarily superior. The South Caucasian countries have on many occasions reiterated their desire for deeper Euro-Atlantic integration. Most prominently, in 2002, Georgia’s President Shevardnadze formally announced the aspirations of his country to join with the both NATO and the European Union.During the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili, the country made more serious steps to that end by leaving the Russia-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and minimizing economic and diplomatic ties with Russia. Although the other two South Caucasian countries did not confront Russia as much as Georgia did, they were also trying to escape from Russia’s grip through integration into EU and NATO.
However, the developments of recent years have demonstrated that the efforts of the South Caucasian states to ally with the West have failed: Armenia has submitted to Russia’s economic and military domination and joined Moscow’s regional integration projects; Azerbaijan de-facto recognizes Russia’s dominance in the region and avoids many projects that might jeopardize their friendship; and Georgia’s latest parliamentary elections and the foreign policies of the government demonstrates that the country has reconciled with the geopolitical limits of the country’s location. Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of the Georgian Dream and who is often seen as the “strong man behind the scenes,” rules out membership into the Euro-Atlantic military and political structures. Prior to the parliamentary elections, he pointed out that:
“The pro-Western course doesn’t mean that we won’t respect our neighbors and take into account their interests… We should understand that Georgia’s accession to the EU is not included in our current agenda… Likewise, we will have to wait a certain period of time until we become members of NATO, because it is a part of a very complicated geopolitical process, and it does not only depend on our aspirations and readiness.”
Following this line, in October, Georgia didn’t support any of Ukraine’s resolutions denouncing the Kremlin’s foreign policy within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) – a move which Mikheil Saakashvili, now the governor of the Odessa region in Ukraine, described as “a shame and disgrace”.In fact, it is often argued that even the West also recognizes the South Caucasus as a de-facto Russian sphere of influence.
Can the Russian Hegemony Be Beneficial?
Thus, it is a given fact that Russia has re-consolidated its dominance over the geopolitical scene of the South Caucasian countries and is likely to remain the hegemonic power over the region for the foreseeable future. Then the questions arise: does Russia’s hegemony that is “imposed” by geography but not voluntarily chosen by the regional countries benefit those countries? Or under which conditions would the South Caucasian countries be better off being under the hegemony of Russia?
The first question does not need special expertise to answer: it is clear that Russia cannot play the role of a “shinning city upon a hill” for the countries in its periphery. Its resource-based shrinking economy, backward technological capabilities, stagnating culture, and underdeveloped educational system fail Russia to serve as a hegemon that might be beneficial to the countries under its supervision. In the post-Soviet region, Russia is usually regarded as a primary impediment before the development of democratic governance. Being itself a corrupted authoritarian state, Russia strictly opposes the advance of democracy in its neighborhood and on the contrary promotes authoritarianism. Therefore, the cooperation between authoritarian local leaders of the region on the one hand and the Kremlin on the other hand has formed a troubling authoritarian backlash against democracy in most former Soviet Countries.
However, since Russia is likely to sustain its hegemony over the South Caucasus in the years to come regardless of its debilitating economy and corrupted political governance, it becomes clear that the South Caucasian countries would better off more if Russia becomes “the shining city upon the hill” – an exemplary model to emulate. Economically developed and democratically governed Russia would spur similar democratic changes also in the South Caucasian countries. These countries might also better off economically as their economies are highly integrated with the Russian economy. This would also contribute to the peace and security in the region, as such a Russia would have lesser need for the frozen conflicts as an instrument to sustain its hegemony. Otherwise, the South Caucasian countries are doomed to keep suffering from economic and political troubles hereinafter, as the actual view of the region indicates that Russia’s hegemony entails with the retreat of democracy and advance of authoritarianism.
***
This article reflects the opinion of the author and as such may not reflect that of Meydan TV.
