Background of the Quest
The central argument - that international governance (specifically the UN) is dysfunctional, beholden to powerful states, and that the world is trending toward a "Neo-authoritarianism". The world is reverting to a Hobbesian "natural state".
My personal logical foundation is based on two systems: dualistic logic (true/false constraint) and catuskoti logic (Both true AND false, Neither true NOR false, or ineffable. Or potentially any combination of the above. It is also fair to assume that I have not identified all possible combinations). Therefore, the argument may seem diverse, contradictory, and complicated.
Dysfunctionality of international community
UN's hypocrisy - acting as a "bully" toward indebted nations while remaining "cowardly silent" about the "powerful untouchable" ones.
A quarter of the way through the 21st century, the world seems globally almost anarchic, where international law, the international community, and the UN have fallen to their lowest point of dysfunction relative to how they should be. By the way, the UN and human rights (HR) organizations today are almost cowardly silent for the errors of “powerful untouchable” countries (which hide behind the word “democracy”), but they act a bit like a bully only for countries that survive on debts and donations from economically rich countries and different world banks. Thus, today the UN functions for powerful countries like a condominium assembly. This is a truly bad situation for the world. The world has almost returned to its pre-United Nations days. It functions not as an independent organization but under threat (threats such as not paying dues) from rich and powerful countries.
The real challenge of democracy: new definition
My definition of democracy, prioritize high individual cultural, civil, and psychological quality over mere collective structures. Thus, I point out that systems are only as good as the individuals who compose and sustain them, offering a vital corrective to purely procedural definitions of democracy.
Meanwhile, I see the world is establishing another form of politics - one I would define as “Neo-authoritarianism” (Authoritarian regimes minimal definition - may be autocratic, oligarchic, the rule of a party, the military, or the concentration of power in a single person or can be found easily on a form of democratic system moving and mixing further all above said limitations. The main characteristic right now seems to be a strong, centralized state to facilitate market reforms as necessary for democratic political reforms or democratic backsliding). It's true that no country in the world is fully democratic, because democracy is a form of system of government that demands more from an individual’s cultural, civil, and psychological quality than from a collective level. That is to say, if the individual is incapable of deciding and deliberating freely without compromising their free will and surviving under bad life conditions, democracy will never function anywhere.
The present global neo-authoritarian system – “Bellum omnium contra omnes”.
I observe the world in general on two dynamic processes: the dynamic processes of survival for people who have nothing but to work (or search for occupation or in-active) and pay taxes to maintain their governments and the dynamic world of war among elites (rich and powerful countries, rich people, political elites, religions, weapons manufacturers, banks and finance organizations, all national, international, and local criminal organizations, terrorist groups, individual criminals, drug producers and dealers) to keep their power status. So, in general the world seems like Thomas Hobbes had defined: “Homo homini lupus est,” because we are surviving in a world of “bellum omnium contra omnes”: the natural state of human beings. “Neo-authoritarian” rulers are working hard to activate British colonial rule of “divide and rule” in their political systems. In this way they can move openly to soon “neo-authoritarian” political system to establish a powerful “neo-authoritarian” state.
Conclusion – The New World Order – Democratic-Authoritarianism
I maintain that this new world order is not all that new, as it has always been functioning behind the scenes. Though I call it “Neo-authoritarianism,” it can also be called “Competitive Authoritarianism” or “Hybrid Regimes.” Now I can openly think, write, and communicate about it because it has been “unmasked” by itself, exactly by those who are practicing it and those who are going to practice it willingly.
They start simply with the most common and justifiable dynamic — the right to have economic prosperity. So, the visible and analysable main characteristic of the “Neo-authoritarian” political system right now is a strong, centralized state to facilitate market reforms. This is a hallmark of many modern neo-authoritarian states, especially those practicing Authoritarian Capitalism (like China or Vietnam, and historically Singapore and ...!?). The regime’s legitimacy is explicitly tied to its ability to deliver rapid economic growth and stability by implementing market-oriented policies without the "disruption" of full democracy. The strong, centralized state is essential to control labour, stifle opposition to privatization, and direct large-scale development projects.
I'll stop explaining the topic of Neo-authoritarianism for now because I intend to delve deeper into the subject later. Today, October 4th, 2025, right now, I have to go eat pizza with my friends. They're waiting for me outside the gate to go to the “pizzeria.”
Concluding this note for my “Agathokakological days” (03) column, I write this warning seriously: "...Homo homini lupus est is not a historical footnote; it is the brutal reality of our time, where we are surviving in a world of bellum omnium contra omnes: the natural state of human beings reasserted."
