Defining National Order in the Post-Neoliberal Political Order
[1.0] Conceptual Primer
[1.1] Political Order
A Political Order is the dominant worldview through which to experience political phenomena.
For a brief overview, see [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[1.0].
For an in-depth exploration, please visit the Definitions section of CivilizationStack.
[1.2] National Order
Where Social Order can be understood as the totality of structured human interrelationships in a given society, we here build upon this concept to craft the notion of a National Order as:
“The totality of structured human interrelationships within a defined territorial boundary, where the existing social, political, economic, and cultural structures are accepted and maintained by its members, ensuring stability, continuity, and cohesion at the national level. It contrasts with national chaos or disorder, reflecting a state in which governance systems, societal norms, and collective identities are aligned and operational within the framework of sovereignty and state authority.”
[2.0] National Order in the Neoliberal Political Order (NPO)
[2.1] National Order Problems Addressed by the NPO
Inclusive of the general problems outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[2.1], a key problem of National Order that the Neoliberal Political Order (NPO) encountered was the cultural and social fragmentation in post-industrial and post-imperial societies.
With identity and citizenship in this new world order no longer based on ethnic or familial heritage, or being a Subject in a wider Empire, the Anglosphere polities promoted policies based on multiculturalism as a way to incorporate diverse groups into the market economy. This replaced previous nationalist, ethnic, and imperial narratives about belonging, rights, and responsibilities.
In particular, the NPO arose out of the Cold War and its core contest between economic systems. Accordingly, Neoliberalism framed liberal democracy and capitalism as the superior alternative to socialism and centrally planned economies. Axiomatic to this framing was the idea that free trade could democratize and liberalize competing groups and absorb them into the Neoliberal framework with no downstream cultural consequences.
[2.2] National Order Assumptions of the NPO
Regarding the problems outlined in [2.1], the NPO developed a core guiding assumption about multiculturalism as market-driven harmony: a belief that cultural pluralism would thrive when individuals from diverse groups could engage freely in commerce and self-expression. At the root of this assumption is an unshakeable belief in the strength of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity as always positive, irrespective of any unifying goal or narrative. If multiculturalism is inherently positive then any negative consequences arising from cultural pluralism, as well as any differences in living standards or attainment between different groups, must be based purely on adverse systemic causes (such as racism). All groups are equal; all cultures are equal.
At the heart of the NPO framework is the assumption that human beings are simply fungible, economic units, that can be replaced with other equally fungible units with no tangible consequences. Human flourishing is purely an individualistic, consumption-based endeavour, and the good life is defined by personal success and access to consumption goods with no cultural input or significance. In this context, any new individual can replace the role or care function of an existing, native individual; citizenship has no special relationship to historical ties, culture or ethnicity.
Within the NPO worldview, borders are simply assumed to be barriers to trade and to the free movement of people: they are thus regarded as oppressive, discriminatory, or oppressive. Further, it is assumed that the purpose of law enforcement is merely to manage community tensions and to avoid a “breach of the peace,” similar to the role of imperial powers in an Empire. As the management of community tensions is the primary aim, criminal offending patterns which may upset majority populations or inflame inter-group tensions must be prevented from becoming public knowledge, while offences to minority groups must be taken seriously with the full backing of the state’s monopoly on violence.
[2.3] National Order Standards of Legitimacy in the NPO
A polity operating under the above assumptions sees economic growth and financial market stability as the primary markers for success. A successful political order is one that ensures GDP growth and investor confidence. No consideration is given to social cohesion.
The north star of the NPO is that each individual must have equal access to the market in a meritocratic society, in which the social mobility of individuals is prioritized. Political legitimacy derives from ensuring individuals have the opportunity to succeed via their own merit and hard work, rather than from wealth, or citizenship status, or ethnic heritage. Any disparities between groups delegitimizes this project and shows an underlying bias or discriminatory practice towards underperforming groups.
The optics of a squeaky-clean inter-group Public Order is prioritized within the NPO worldview over individual justice. Security legitimacy comes from the state’s ability to manage community tensions between societal factions, not from punishing and deterring overall crime.
[2.4] National Order Methods of the NPO
Given that the strength of cultural diversity is axiomatically assumed, identity policies must exist at every layer within the military and the criminal justice system. As outlined in [Defining Anglospheric Identity]:[2.4], multiculturalism is framed as minority rights and tackled though diversity initiatives within the criminal justice system. Civil liberties are interpreted through the lens of minority rights, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The makeup of the military and other key institutions must reflect the national population and include various underrepresented groups; all law enforcement and security forces must take steps to understand minority groups and protect their sensibilities. This striving to be paternalistically understanding of minority groups is inclusive of both ethnic and religious minorities – this project is constantly expanded to include more underserved minority groups.
As human beings are fungible economic units, immigration policy is the only acceptable method to plug labour market shortage, to increase economic growth, and to respond to demographic challenges. No preference can be given to the identity of the citizens of the existing polity when responding to an ageing population, low birth rates, and concerns about pensions and welfare systems. Repeat the axiom: all groups are equal, all cultures are equal.
As outlined at [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[2.4], through a unified acceptance of globalism and individualism, multiculturalism is also framed as a consumer choice issue – factional identity conflicts that would have led to wars of assimilation in times past are papered over by enforcing “to each his own” along group identity issues. Moreover, to further derisk factional identity conflicts, diversity initiatives are core tools in corporate and institutional settings to make sure that all group factions feel represented in the nominal seats of power. As such, through identity politics and diversity initiatives, a NPO polity strives to achieve social harmony that would have been approached through assimilationist and nationalist means in previous political orders
[3.0] National Order in the Post-Neoliberal Political Order (Post-NPO)
[3.1] National Order Problems Addressed by the Post-NPO
Inclusive of the failures outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.1], a fundamental failure of the NPO lies in its inability to maintain cohesion at every level of society – instead, the NPO oversaw a great societal fracturing. The NPO has been unable to provide a framework for National Order across the Anglosphere polities, which has led to a weaking of national sovereignty, degradation of military security, inadequate border control, and weakening criminal law enforcement in the interests of managing community tensions.
The Anglosphere has experienced significant waves of migration in the past few decades of globalization. Anglosphere polities have struggled to restrict the flow of low-skill, low-wage immigration; they have had to cope with increasing levels of asylum and refugee claims, as well as illegal migration. Even high-skilled immigration has not been free from the trend towards lower social trust and increasing ethnic balkanization. This has led to Brexit in the United Kingdom, more restrictive offshore detention regimes in Australia, and an increasing focus on the US-Mexico border in the United States. Despite these developments, the Anglosphere polities have been unable to reduce and refine migration to the level that is needed to uphold National Order. This has been compounded by economic policies which rely on mass immigration to plug labour gaps and demographic trends, which are a key feature of the NPO.
Alongside concerns about infrastructure, public services, housing, and labour market displacement of native populations, rapid, large scale immigration into the Anglosphere countries has led to a series of cultural, social, and religious tensions both between minority groups themselves, and between minority groups and the majority culture. The local populace in each Anglosphere has become increasingly concerned about these tensions.
As outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.1], this unsophisticated approach to multiculturalism, invariably implemented as mass immigration (legal or otherwise) led to cultural fragmentation and paved the way for populist uprisings. An anti-assimilationist “to each his own” approach to multiculturalism operationalized at a mass immigration scale led to the formation of balkanized homogenous ethnoburbs surrounding major urban metropolises. Native residents were displaced from urban centres; politically influential urban cores were subjected to diaspora politics and foreign interference that undermined the political clout of native residents.
Within the Anglosphere polities, the failures of mass immigration have directly contravened each country’s ability to adequately respond to rising tensions and to prioritize national security, sovereignty, rule of law, and enforcement of criminal standards; ultimately, military security has been undermined. For example, statue and cultural institutions in the UK have responded to clashes between Islamist blasphemy standards and the UK’s secular laws by seeking to avoid causing offence to minority groups, rather than by upholding the rule of law. Similarly, public concern about both Islamist related terrorism offences and criminal offending patterns within some minority communities has been ignored or deliberately suppressed. However, the public anger has not dissipated, which has led to protests, riots, and increasing concern. The populace of the Anglosphere is increasingly losing faith in democratic and established solutions to these escalating challenges.
[3.2] National Order Assumptions of the Post-NPO
The general assumptions outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.2] are all relevant here. Specifically with reference to the question of National Order, a key assumption of the new political order is that legitimacy is derived from stability and security, not from growth alone. Where legitimacy in the NPO was defined merely through GDP growth and market performance, legitimacy in the Post-NPO will see these economic factors as being secondary to social cohesion, stability, and National Order.
The focus on social cohesion, stability and National Order is leading to a rejection of hyper-globalization in favour of national and regional spheres. Unrestricted free movement of capital, goods and people across the globe is giving way to a renewed focus on the sovereignty of each national polity, stronger borders, and a secure industrial policy.
Public Order under the Post-NPO is derived from punishing and deterring crime, not simply on managing community tensions. Social cohesion can only be maintained when perpetrators of criminal offences are punished – and are seen to be punished.
Instead of seeing individuals are merely tradeable fungible economic goods who can be replaced by any other with no social or cultural cost, individuals are increasingly becoming seen as part of a collective identity. Economic and political frameworks will revolve around groups (racial, national or class-based) rather than atomized individuals. Within this paradigm, demographic trends are an indicator of the future security of the political order. The future of the political order depends on its ability to reproduce itself, rather than on its ability to import other cultural individuals into the polity in order to plug labour and care gaps. Where overseas labour and talent is required, social cohesion and the ability to assimilate into the polity’s culture and identity is paramount, in order to maintain National Order.
[3.3] National Order Standards of Legitimacy in the Post-NPO
As outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.3], the standards of a Post-NPO consist of national strength, economic security, cultural continuity, demographic security, and climate sustainability. All of these desires speak to one singular thread of legitimacy: managed stability. This means that markets and society are directed to serve collective interests rather than individualistic goals.
These standards are key to maintaining National Order within each polity. Each Anglosphere polity must obtain control of its borders, military, and criminal law enforcement, in order to maintain National Order under a regime of managed stability.
[3.4] National Order Methods of the Post-NPO
In accordance with [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.4], we are still living through an interregnum between political orders where several clusters of acceptable tools and techniques are consolidating and being implemented. As these pertain to National Order, the existing NPO’s methods of using criminal law enforcement to manage community tensions is no longer tenable. Instead, the cluster of new methods revolving around controlled labour and immigration policies are becoming more important.
As uncontrolled mass migration is increasingly seen as destabilizing, group-based criminal patterns are increasingly being highlighted; the social costs of ethnic and religious diversity with no unifying goal can no longer be hidden. In this new paradigm, methods which were once unthinkable to the NPO are now seen as both desirable and required in order to maintain National Order – these include:
more restrictive immigration policies both for legal and illegal migration,
an ability to distinguish between cultural groups that can be assimilated into the Anglosphere polities and cultural groups that have historically struggled to assimilate, and
stricter enforcement of deportation powers for foreign national criminals.
Furthermore, existing minority populations with relatively high criminal offending rates will be under increasing scrutiny; there is a strong public desire for perpetrators to be swiftly punished – and to be seen to be punished. The optics of the punishments will be as important as the punishments themselves.
Protectionist tactics involving domestic labour force reskilling and immigration restrictions will also be key to developing and maintaining National Order. As mass immigration is becoming increasingly seen as destabilizing, demographic challenges will have to be met by domestically restructuring labour market participation, care, and social and welfare policies; opening the floodgates of immigration can no longer be the prime tool of policymakers.
In order to uphold the rule of law and to maintain National Order within the criminal justice system, criminal enforcement and sentencing standards based on punishment, deterrence and preventing future offending will take precedence over standards based merely on rehabilitation. This may lead to a renewed focus on methods such as capital punishment for the most destabilizing and violent criminal offences where a high number of offenders are repeat offenders, such as cases involving terrorism and violent child sexual offences.