Mobilization and Implementation

Successful resource mobilization has evolved into a key function for many present-day
international public administrations (IPAs). A large number of international organizations (IOs)
and their administrations depend to significant shares on often-earmarked voluntary
contributions, requiring substantial efforts to maintain or even increase resource levels. These
dynamics are well known to practitioners and have received increased attention in
International Relations (IR) and Public Administration (PA) recently. However, little is still
known about what role the administrations of IOs play in developing or adapting resource
mobilization strategies and about how IPAs structure resource mobilization as a core function
internally and in wider organizational fields.

Based on theoretical and conceptual insights from Public Administration, International

Relations, Organizational Sociology, Public Management, and Public Policy we develop a
theoretical model to formulate expectations about the choice of different types of resource
mobilization strategies and the related administrative structures within the UN system. We then
present empirical evidence gathered from UN Joint Inspection Unit reports, official UN
documents and interviews with officials in UN, ILO, UNESCO and WHO, showing that
resource mobilization has indeed become increasingly centralized in the UN system. The paper
closes with a research outlook on our upcoming research on resource mobilization in IOs
involved in international refugee policy.

Diplomacy of Secrecy of decision

Diplomacy has existed since the beginning of the human race. The act of conducting negotiations
between two persons, or two nations at a large scope is essential to the upkeep of international
affairs. Among the many functions of diplomacy, some include preventing war and violence, and
fortifying relations between two nations. Diplomacy is most importantly used to complete a
specific agenda. Therefore without diplomacy, much of the world’s affairs would be abolished,
international organizations would not exist, and above all the world would be at a constant state of
war. It is for diplomacy that certain countries can exist in harmony.
“Diplomacy is neither the invention nor the pastime of some particular political system, but is an
essential element in any reasonable relation between man and man and between nation and nation”
Determinant’s of Foreign policy
Those factors that influence and determine the foreign policy of a country are its determinants.
Some of these factors are static or of unchanging nature, whereas others are in a state of flux and
their dynamics are continually adjusted to the changing circumstances.

External Determinants

1. Power Structure
the relations that nations establish among themselves are backed by their respective national
interests and powers. In fact, such relations involve struggle for power among them. The net
effect is that international relations constitute a power structure in which the more powerful
nations—the super powers and the major powers—play a more vigorous and leading role than
the relatively less powerful nations.
The power vacuum caused by the weakened power of the formerly powerful European states,
because of their involvement in two World Wars compelled the U.S.A. to come out of its
isolationism and assume a new global role in international relations.
The emergence of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. as the two super powers with cold war in between
them, made it imperative for the newly independent states like India, to adopt a policy of keeping
away from the cold war and yet attempt to have friendly co-operation with both the super
powers.

2. International Organizations
The role and importance of international institutions as instruments of states’ foreign policies,
and the political, military, functional, economic and humanitarian roles played principally by the
United Nations in international relations cannot be overestimated. These international
organizations to varying degrees serve as modifiers of state behavior and as independent actors
in their own right. They have profound impact on the determination of the foreign policy of a
state. No state can decide and conduct its policy arbitrarily to the detriment of other states. UN
and other multilateral forums come to the rescue of the aggressed state. Usually sanctions are
imposed which in some cases become very effective provided the international community
imposes them sincerely.

3. Reaction of other states

likewise the system of states is fast transforming into a society of states state where each
individual states has regard for the rights of other states. Being sensible to the sensibilities of
other states, no state can adopt a unilateral policy. It has to take into account, and accommodate,
if possible, the interests of the other stakeholders as well. India and the US have to take stock of
Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. They are also cognizant of the fact that no plan for
Afghanistan can work until and unless Pakistan is taken aboard in this regard.
4. World Public Opinion
The state, while formulating its foreign policy has to take into account the world public opinion.
World public opinion is more effective when it is supported by the domestic public opinion of
the given state. Power is not about military hardware or nukes and ammunitions; it is equally
important component is a state’s prestige known as ‘soft power’. It is well known that the US
administration was made to effect changes in its Vietnam policy largely due to hostile world
public opinion.
The real strength behind the objectives of Disarmament, Arms Control and Nuclear
Disarmament, Anti- colonialism, Anti-apartheid policies of various nations, has been the World
Public Opinion.

5. Alliances and Treaties (Bilateral and Multilateral):

The extensive and intensive system of alliances that emerged in the Post-1945 period had a big
impact on the foreign policies of all the nations. During 1945-90 both the United States and the
USSR, recognized and used alliances as the means for consolidating their respective positions.
Their foreign policies, as well as the foreign policies of their allies were always governed by the
goal to secure new partners in their respective alliances and to maintain and consolidate the
alliance partnerships. Even now, after the demise of Warsaw Pact, the U.S.A. continues to
consider NATO as the mainstay of its foreign policy in Europe.
NATO’s support to the US decision to declare a war against Taliban’s Afghanistan decidedly
gave strength to the US foreign policy. However, many other nations, the Non-aligned nations,
continue to regard alliances as a source of tension and distrust and their foreign policies are still
governed by the anti-alliance principle.
Recently, another factor has become an influential factor in Foreign Policy- making. The
realization for mutual inter-dependence has given birth to a large number of regional
organizations, arrangements, agreements and trading blocs. European Union, ASEAN, SAARC
NAFTA, APEC, SCO and several others have been major players in international economic
relations.

6. Economic Developmental Needs

Pakistan and India are bargaining with Iran for the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline and
with Turkmenistan for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline
project. Besides a proposal for exporting gas from Qatar is also under consideration. India has
received a big boost in this regard with the coming into force of the US-India deal on the
peaceful nuclear technology. This has virtually legitimized Indian nuclear programmes much to
the chagrin of Pakistan, which has since been strenuously lobbying for getting the same status.

INTERNAL DETERMINANTS

1.Historical and Cultural Influence

the cultural and historical traditions of a country deeply influence the foreign policy.
Generally, people possessing a unified common culture and historical experience can pursue an
effective foreign policy because of the support of all sections of society who share the same
values and memories. Equally important are the processes through which the contents of Shared
norms and practices of society, as distinguished from the degree of unity that supports them
shape the plans that are made and the activities that are undertaken with respect to the external
world.
India’s apprehensions of China and Pakistan are the product of their historical traditions.
India and China have to some extent shelved their historical mistrust in order to pave ground for
their mutual trade. It is believed by the Complex Interdependence theorists that in the present age
of interdependence, it is highly improbable that the two countries would go to war.

2. Size and Geography

The size of a state's territory as well as its population greatly influences its foreign policy.
Generally, the leaders and people of countries with small territory and population do not expect
their country to carry great weight in international affairs. On the other hand, the leaders and
people of large countries are ready to assume special responsibilities. Size has been a factor in
the foreign policies of the U.S.A., Russia, China, India, Brazil, France and others.
However, sometimes even small states, which have rich resources, also leave a deep impact on
world politics. For example, Britain, a small country, played leading role in world politics in the
nineteenth and early twentieth century. In our own times the oil-rich countries of the Middle
East, though small are playing a significant role in international politics.
On the other hand, large states like Canada and Australia have not been able to pursue effective
foreign policy. Commonwealth of Independent states (CIS) which came into existence after the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, though quite large, is not able to play an effective role in
contemporary international relations.
The geography of a country, including its fertility, climate, location in relation to their
landmasses, etc. also influence the country's foreign policy. It is a major factor in determining
self-sufficiency of a country.

3. Population
The human force constitutes another determinant of foreign policy. The strength of a nation
depends upon the quality and quantity of its human factor. The enormous population of China
enabled it to pursue a forceful foreign policy. On the other hand, the falling birth rate in France
compelled her to toe a weak foreign policy during the inter-war period. Qualitatively, the
population should be healthy, educated and prosperous. It should also possess technical
knowledge. It is however, to be noted that the population of a country has to be evaluated in
relation to its other attributes. If the resources of a country are not sufficient to meet the
requirements of the large population, the latter may pose a serious challenge to the very existence
of the state. But if there are sufficient resources to meet the requirements of a large population,
then it certainly adds to the power of the state, as this may enable it to mold its foreign policy
accordingly. Instances from USA and the defunct Soviet Union’s history can be quoted to
substantiate this point. On the other side if the state possesses sufficient natural resources but less
population, then it may not be able to assert it. The example of Canada can be quoted in this
respect. Canada has been pursuing a liberal Immigration Policy to overcome this deficiency.
4. Natural Resources
The natural resources of a country also profoundly influence the determination of a foreign
policy. The natural resources apart from minerals, gas and water resources also include the food
grain. During the present century, food has tended to be an important factor in the determination
of a country’s foreign policy. It is said that during the Second World War the foreign and
military policy of Germany was largely, determined by her limited food reserves.
She resorted to massive action because she was to win a quick victory in view of the danger of
starvation faced by the German army. In the post-World War II, Oil diplomacy in the Middle
East has greatly determined foreign policy not only of the states of the region, but also of the
entire world. The attitude of the super powers during the cold war, towards the region of the
Middle East in particular, was largely, dictated by their desire to control the oil.
We can say that the natural resources and raw material exercise considerable influence upon the
foreign policy of a country. In the absence of a sound industrial complex, they can make a state
vulnerable to foreign intervention, but with their domestic consumption and indigenous input,
they can be a real boon for any country. In such a case, the state would pursue its foreign policy
more confidently and assertively.

5. Economic and Industrial Development

The stage of economic development which a country has attained also has its impact on its
foreign policy. Generally the industrially advanced countries feel more deeply involved in
relations with other countries because they have to import different kinds of raw materials and
commodities from other countries.. Again, an industrial country is expected to have a higher
gross national product (GNP) and can devote greater funds for external purpose, economic aid
programmes, military ventures and extensive diplomatic commitments.
Their vast economic and industrial resources and their needs for foreign markets and trade again
governed the global perspectives and policies of the two super-powers (1945-90). In fact, all
economically and industrially developed nations (Group of seven plus one, countries in
particular) are now playing a more a vigorous role in international relations than the lowly
developed and developing countries.

6. Military Power
Besides all the preceding factors, the military strength of a country also determines the
effectiveness of its foreign policy. A state possessing sufficient military strength has greater
initiative and bargaining power in the international arena. The case of Israel can be quoted as an
example. She continues her precarious existence despite the combined opposition of the Allied
nations; she has power to maintain an assertive foreign policy. Unlike geographical and natural
resources, the military capacity is not a static factor. It keeps on changing. The states try to
impress about their military superiority in a number of ways, such as nuclear tests, mobilization
of army, periodical display of military forces, devices and techniques.
Military strength of a country is closely linked to its resourcefulness and the development of its
industry. A developed civil industry can be made to manufacture military hardware during the
time of wars and crises.
7. National Capacity
The national capacity of a state also exercises profound influence on the foreign policy of a
state. National capacity of a state depends on its military preparedness, it’s technological
advancement and economic development. It is well known that United States which continued to
pursue policy of isolation till the beginning of the present century got deeply involved in the
international arena in the present century mainly due to tremendous increase in her national
capacity due to rapid economic development. Similarly, the foreign policy of Britain underwent
great transformation in the post World War II period, mainly due to decline in her national
capacity.

8. Social Structure
The social structure of a society also exercises profound influence on its foreign policy.
A society, which is sharply divided, based on wealth, religion, regional imbalances, etc. cannot
pursue effective foreign policy because of division and lack of co-operation among various
groups. It is well known that Britain stood as one person under the leadership of Churchill during
the Second World War and the people gladly suffered all kinds of hardships to preserve their
unity because of social solidarity.

9. Political System
the political system found in a country also greatly influences the foreign policy. Generally
under authoritarian system quick foreign policy decisions are possible because the decision
making power rests with an individual assisted by his clique
On the other hand in a country possessing a democratic structure the citizens can freely express
their opinion on the domestic as well as foreign policy which naturally leave its impact on the
foreign policy of the country.

11. Leadership
No doubt, the qualities of leadership have a deep impact on the country's foreign policy but their
role is greatly constrained by the governmental and social structure. Further, the role of
leadership is not identical in all countries. In less developed countries, their role is greater as
compared to industrialized societies. In industrialized societies, the individuals enjoy very
limited discretion in high governmental and non-governmental positions.

12. Internal Situation

Like the external situational factors, sudden changes, disturbances or disorders that occur within
the internal environment of a nation also influence the nature and course of foreign policy. The
resignation of President Nixon over the issue of Watergate Scandal considerably limited the
foreign policy of USA under President Ford.
The internal opposition to the military regime in Pakistan during 1947-89 was a determinant of
Pakistani foreign policy. Similarly, the declaration of emergency in India in 1975 did materially
affect the relations of India with other countries particularly the super powers. A change of
government is always a source of change in the foreign policy of a state.
Conclusion
it is clear from the above discussion that foreign policy of a country is determined by a number
of factors. As most of these factors are of changing nature, so with their evolution or
transformation, foreign policies of countries also keep on changing. In addition to these factors,
certain developments at the international level such as development of thermo-nuclear
technology, onset of cold war and military alliances, elimination of colonialism have exercised
profound influence on the foreign policies of different countries. The creation of United Nations
has also left a mark on the foreign policies of different countries. The end of cold war influenced
the states in every region of the world to modify their foreign policies in according with the
changing dynamics of the world. Post 9/11 has a similar effect on the states.

Contemporary Environments of IR
Theories of Sovereignty
What is Sovereignty?
Notion of sovereignty can also be explained as to be the power of one particular class of society
over another class1. Derived from the Latin term Superman’s, which means supreme, sovereignty,
denotes the supreme power of the state to extract obedience from the people who inhabit it. It
means that the power of the state is unquestionable and the state has a right to demand allegiance
from its citizens. Disobedience of set of laws and supremacy of state will led to sanction of
punishment. There are two types of Sovereignty internal Sovereignty and external Sovereignty,
where the state is supreme to any individual or organization, living or functioning, within its
boundaries, and they have to function under the laws and command of the state. The power of the
state over them is original, total, indefinite and all-inclusive. External Sovereignty means that in
the comity of states, every state is supreme and is free to cast its destiny. No other state or any
international organization can claim dominance to a state. The state may be subjected to certain
treaties or other obligations, but they are self-imposed obligations on the part of the state. None
can compel or enforce any obligation on the state, which it is not willing to accept. Thus, the state
is equipped with internal and external sovereignty that gives it over-riding powers over individuals,
groups and organizations and makes it absolute.

Definitions of Sovereignty -
The concept of sovereignty is one of the most complex, with many definitions, some totally
contradictory. Usually, sovereignty is defined in one of two ways. The first definition applies to
supreme public power, which has the right and, in theory, the capacity to impose its authority in
the last instance. The second definition refers to the holder of legitimate power, who is recognized
to have authority. When national sovereignty is discussed, the first definition applies, and it refers
in particular to independence, understood as the freedom of a collective entity to act. When popular
sovereignty is discussed, the second definition applies, and sovereignty is associated with power
and legitimacy.2 there are various definition of Sovereignty, which has been defined by
academicians and philosophers they are as follows:
In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the
form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory that is its supremacy in the
domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.3

Lassa Oppenheim defines Sovereignty, as “There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of
which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception,
from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had
a meaning, which was universally agreed upon.4

John Bodine defines sovereignty “The supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by
law." 5
Grotius defines sovereignty as “The supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not
subject to any other and whose will cannot be overridden”
In addition, definition of Sovereignty by Solti is “Final legal coercive power by the state."

Therefore, Essentials of Sovereignty can be summarized as well as understood from the above-
mentioned definitions of sovereignty through following points:
1. An element of the state.
2. Ultimate will of the state.
3. Authorized coercive power of the state.
4. Absolute laws.
5. It lies within individuals
6. Absolute and unlimited authority

Types of Sovereignty:
The word sovereignty has been used in many ways in Political Science that makes its
understanding very difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to understand its varied uses. There are
many types of sovereignty, which can be explained as follows:-

Legal Sovereignty: Legal sovereignty represents sovereignty as the supreme law making power;
that is, to issue the highest orders. It is bound neither by moral nor by natural laws. Laws made by
the sovereign are to be obeyed by all compulsorily. Thus, in real political life, legal sovereignty,
as undisputed supreme power to make any law, is not generally seen. According to Garner, "The
legal sovereign, therefore, is that determinate authority which is able to express in a legal form the
highest commands of the state that power which can override the prescriptions of the divine law,
the principles of morality, the mandates of public opinion, etc." The concept of legal sovereignty
found the most comprehensive treatment in Austin's theory of sovereignty known as Monism.

Political Sovereignty: History has shown several instances of this revolutionary political
sovereignty destroying the legal sovereign It is defined by Dicey that "Behind the sovereign which
the lawyer recognizes there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow That body
is politically sovereign, the will of which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens of the state". If legal
sovereignty has to survive, then it must work in close cooperation with political sovereignty.
Popular Sovereignty: Modern democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty, which
means that the source of all authority is the people. J.J. Rousseau is credited with espousing it in
modern times. However, earlier also, the concept of popular sovereignty was not unknown.
Popular Sovereignty can merely be understood as ‘people’s affairs’6 it means that people have
supreme power and ultimate authority rests with them. Rousseau calls it as “general will". The
concept of popular sovereignty was accepted as the basic principle of governance in the American
and French revolutions.

The concept of popular sovereignty is very attractive. However, it is shrouded with vagueness. It
is very difficult to explain it in practical terms. It is good to say that people are the basis of any
political system and their will must be reflected in the governance.

National Sovereignty: the French revolutionists in their Declaration of the Rights of Man. first
formulated the principle of national sovereignty. It means that sovereignty resides essentially in
the nation, conceived as a collective body of all the people enjoying independence from external
control.

Real and Titular Sovereignty: Real and Titular Sovereignty both are interrelated terms. Titular
Sovereignty can be defined as sovereignty power acceded by the Monarch. As the constitutional
or ceremonial head of the state, he is called a titular sovereign. The monarchy in England still
exists and all the powers are exercised in the name of the king or the queen but the real sovereign
is the Crown. However, comparing it with India, where the president is the titular head while the
real sovereign is the prime minister and his cabinet.

De Jure and De Facto Sovereignty: This aspect of sovereignty has been established by
international law. Whenever there is a political upheaval or a civil war in a country or a similar
situation, we have two types of government- the legal government, which has been uprooted and
the new government, which though not legal, holds actual power. In such a situation, the question
of recognition of (which) power arises. De jure, sovereignty is one, which is legally competent to
issue the highest command of the state. It has the legal right to exercise sovereign power and has
the obedience of the masses. A de facto (factual) sovereign is the one who does have actual power
and who has real command to go with it. His authority rests on his physical force and control. He
may be a Usurping king, a dictator, a priest, a prophet, or a charismatic leader. In any of these
instances, his power rests not on law, but on physical force and actual control. De jure means
“having a right or existence as stated by law”7

It is the sovereignty, which according to legal right is entitled to the obedience of the people.
Whereas De Facto means legal or accepted therefore it is the actual sovereign, which exercises
control over the people and enjoys their real obedience to its commands. However, here one thing
must be understood, viz., that the distinction between de facto and de jure sovereignty is with
regard to the exercise of sovereign power. It is mainly important from the viewpoint of
international law and diplomacy. This question becomes important only in the case of a revolution,
a coup, a civil war, etc., in a state because in such cases there exist too many political claims to
sovereignty. 8
Ideological division of the world.
An ideology is a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual. Very often ideology refers
to a set of political beliefs or a set of ideas that characterize a particular culture

1. Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four
factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. The owners of capital
goods, natural resources, and entrepreneurship exercise control through companies.
The individual owns his or her labor. The only exception is slavery, where someone else owns a
person's labor. Although illegal throughout the entire world, slavery is still widely practiced.
Characteristics of Capitalism
Capitalistic ownership means two things. First, the owners control the factors of production.
Second, they derive their income from their ownership. That gives them the ability to operate
their companies efficiently. It also provides them with the incentive to maximize profit. This
incentive is why many capitalists say, "Greed is good."
In corporations, the shareholders are the owners. Their level of control depends on how many
shares they own. The shareholders elect a board of directors. They hire chief executives to
manage the company.
Capitalism requires a free market economy to succeed. It distributes goods and services
according to the laws of supply and demand. The law of demand says that when demand
increases for a particular product, price rises. When competitors realize they can make a higher
profit, they increase production. The greater supply reduces prices to a level where only the best
competitors remain.
The owners of supply compete against each other for the highest profit. They sell their goods at
the highest possible price while keeping their costs as low as possible. Competition keeps prices
moderate and production efficient.
Another component of capitalism is the free operation of the capital markets.
That means the laws of supply and demand set fair prices for stocks, bonds, derivatives,
currency, and commodities. Capital markets allow companies to raise funds to expand.
Companies distribute profits among the owners. They include investors, stockholders,
and private owners.
Laissez-faire economic theory says the government should take a "hands-off" approach to
capitalism. It should intervene only to maintain a level playing field. The government role is to
protect the free market. It should prevent the unfair advantages obtained
by monopolies or oligarchies. It ought to prevent manipulation of information, making sure it
is distributed equitably.
Part of protecting the market is keeping order with national defense. The government should
also maintain infrastructure. It taxes capital gains and income to pay for these goals. Global
governmental bodies adjudicate international trade.
Advantages of Capitalism
Capitalism results in the best products for the best prices. That is because consumers will pay
more for what they want the most. Businesses provide what customers want at the highest prices
they will pay. Prices are kept low by competition among businesses. They make their products
as efficient as possible to maximize profit.
Most important for economic growth is capitalism's intrinsic reward for innovation. This
includes innovation in more efficient production methods. It also means the innovation of new
products. As Steve Jobs said, "You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give
that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
Disadvantages of Capitalism
Capitalism does not provide for those who lack competitive skills. This includes the elderly,
children, the developmentally disabled, and caretakers. To keep society functioning, capitalism
requires government policies that value the family unit.
Despite the idea of a “level playing field,” capitalism does not promote equality of opportunity.
Those without the proper nutrition, support, and education may never make it to the playing
field.
Society will never benefit from their valuable skills.

2. Communist
Though the term "communism" can refer to specific political parties, at its core, communism is
an ideology of economic equality through the elimination of private property.
The beliefs of communism, most famously expressed by Karl Marx, center on the idea that
inequality and suffering result from capitalism. Under capitalism, private business people and
corporations own all the factories, equipment and other resources called "the means of
production." These owners, according to communist doctrine, can then exploit workers, who are
forced, sell their labor for wages.
The working class — or "proletariat" — must rise up against the capitalist owners, or
"bourgeoisie," according to the ideals of communism, and institute a new society with no private
property, no economic classes and no profits
Communism differs from socialism, though the two have similarities. Both philosophies
advocate economic equality and state ownership of various goods and services. However,
socialism usually works through the existing democratic structures of capitalist countries. Almost
all capitalist countries, in fact, have some socialist characteristics, like the public schools
and Social Security program in the United States.
In contrast, communists state that capitalist economic and political systems must be completely
overthrown through revolution.
Historically, such communist revolutions have never yielded their intended utopias of equality.
Communist theory predicts that, after the proletariat revolution, special leaders must temporarily
take control of the state, leading it toward an eventual "true" communist society. Thus, the
governments of the Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba and others were intended to be
provisional. In practice, these "temporary" governments have held on to power, often subjecting
their citizens to authoritarian control.
Communist ideology also states that these revolutions should spread across the globe, rather than
be limited to individual countries. This helps explain the historical antagonism between capitalist
and communist nations — particularly the long Cold War between the United States and the
Soviet Union.

3. Islamic

Most Muslims claim, “Islam is one” and offers a blueprint for all aspects of life. Islam increasingly
occupies a special place in school curricula, and states seek to control what is said in mosques.
Catechism-like pamphlets and essays, often in question-and-answer format and popular language,
offer believers quick, encapsulated formulations of belief and practice. Religious activists
encourage Muslims to be able to explain why they pray and fast. Such organization reflects a
conscious systemization of doctrine and practice, so that masses, rather than specialists, are able
to formulate and answer questions about faith. The result is empowerment of Muslims and the
creation of new patterns of religious authority free from reliance on traditionally educated religious
elites. The concern with ideology in Islam stems from the recognition that other ideologies have
been applied in social and political contexts. Islamists charge that Islam should play a central role
in the social and political arenas, noting that the Islamic ideology upheld in many countries is not
a reflection of genuine Islam, but rather principles that secure the interests of the ruling class. The
formal ideologies of reformists and Islamists in particular have offered interpretations of Islam
that appeal primarily to modern, educated elites, so that urban values have been incorporated into
formalized doctrine and practice.

End of traditional powers

“Separation of powers” refers to the idea that the major institutions of state should be
functionally independent and that no individual should have powers that span these offices.
The principal institutions are usually taken to be the executive, the legislature and the
judiciary.
In early accounts, such as Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, the separation of powers is
intended to guard against tyranny and preserve liberty. It was held that the major institutions
should be divided and dependent upon each other so that one power would not be able to
exceed that of the other two. Today, the separation of powers is more often suggested as a
way to foster a system of checks and balances necessary for good government.
In the United States and other presidential system, a strict separation is often a fundamental
constitutional principle. In the United Kingdom and other common law jurisdictions, however,
the theory of separation has enjoyed much less prominence. In the UK, the major offices and
institutions have evolved to achieve balance between the Crown (and more recently the
Government) and Parliament. The system resembles a balance of powers more than a
formal separation of the three branches, or what Walter Bagehot called a “fusion of powers”
in The English Constitution.

Bipolarity
Bipolarity can be defined as a system of world order in which the majority of global economic,
military and cultural influence is held between two states. The classic case of a bipolar world is
that of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, which dominated the second
half of the twentieth century. International political economy according to Robert Gilpin is “the
reciprocal and dynamic interaction in international relations of the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit
of power” (Gilpin, 1987).

The concept of bipolarity has significant implications for global order. Firstly, two rival powers
cannot remain in equilibrium indefinitely; one has to surpass the other and therefore conflict is
inevitable in a bipolar world. Of increasing importance also, is the emergence of power blocs,
which arise as lesser powers fall under the influence of one or other of the superpowers. In this
regard, global order is not stable during periods of bipolarity, but instead, warfare appears to be
necessary for the resolution of rivalry between two superpowers. In this context, it seems fitting to
describe a bipolar world as one that is in “dynamic equilibrium,” where the two sides are equal in
power but one may achieve a higher power for a short time before the other matches that power
again to re-establish the balance.