A Polyphonic World Order

Imagine a world where every country, big or small, has a say.

This is what people mean when they talk about a “polyphonic world.” Instead of a world run by a few powerful nations, like the United States, China, Russia, NATO, and the UN Security Council, it’s a world where many voices and ideas shape global decisions. In this world, different countries, cultures, and perspectives work together, each adding a unique perspective.

Some countries, like Russia and China, like this idea.

They often challenge systems led by Western nations. With so many different national interests, getting everyone to talk openly and agree can be tough. Smaller countries have a lot to gain—and large, powerful nation-states have much to lose—in this complex game of global politics.

Today, the world is filled with over 110 conflicts, and the biggest powers haven’t managed to make it safer. In most cases, the most powerful nations have influenced government regime changes by funding arms and intelligence to create chaos in order to change governments for their own national interest. This isn’t just about wars; it’s about how countries try to get what they want, often through regime change so that powerful countries can extract resources from a destabilized country, at the expense of others. This system of rivalries and alliances doesn’t always make the world a safer place. Today, we are living in a global world order with unending conflicts due to national self-interests.

But if we did move to a polyphonic world order, things would change.

Imagine smaller countries having a real voice in big decisions. They could work more closely with regional groups, like the African Union in Africa or ASEAN in Southeast Asia, to solve problems that affect their regions directly. These groups know their own areas best, so they might be able to bring in solutions that actually work for their societies.

A world where no one country is the “global policeman” could also mean less chance of big powers using smaller countries as battlegrounds for proxy wars or to test out their new military technology, as if these smaller, weaker countries were military laboratories. Instead, countries might choose to settle their disagreements through networks that are closer to them. This approach could cut down on wars and help keep peace.

Such a world order would make organizations like the United Nations stronger.

If countries worked together equally, then the UN could do a better job of helping with big problems and keeping the peace. With many voices at the table, there would be less dominance by any one power and more chances for countries to solve their problems locally.

A polyphonic world order would only work if all countries were truly committed to working together.

There would need to be a shared focus on diplomacy, fair cooperation, respect for each country’s values, and perspectives. And while it has the potential to create a more peaceful world, there are some real obstacles. For example, if every country wants a say, it might take longer to make decisions. Rivalries between neighbouring countries could still cause trouble. And in emergencies, this slower process might mean less immediate help where it’s needed most.

In the end, a polyphonic world depends on everyone’s willingness to make it happen. If countries can find a way to work together, not for their own greed but for the greater good, we could build a safer, more inclusive global community.

As Annie Jacobsen, author of Nuclear War: A Scenario, has mentioned, the world is ever closer to nuclear war—a nuclear holocaust that would take less than three hours to destroy all the power and water infrastructure, and less than four weeks to create a nuclear winter of -60°C across the whole planet, due to the blocked sunlight from radioactive smoke of burning buildings, structures, crops, and forests.