Here is something I wrote up today. I was just thinking about stuff and I started writing. Read teh whole thing, I think you will find it interesting:

Hegemony: The power to predominantly influence another country's decisions in one's own favour.

The US is the world's current hegemon. There have been roughly three or four hegemons during the history of the world. Before the world became so globalised, there were many different hegemons that acted as influencers within their own regions and even continents.

However, the most famous and impressive hegemons in our history have been the Republic of Rome (this period is known as Pax Romania), Great Britain (Pax Britanica), and now the United States (Pax Americana).

The idea is that during these periods one country/state/power has possessed significantly more power than many other countries combined. Therefore, it has been able to assert its views/interests/power on other countries.

A country that is powerful enough to be a hegemon usually challenges the current hegemon for power. Well, that is what the theory says anyway. That is called the Hegemonic War Theory. This challenge, the theory continues to explain, leads to a hegemonic war with the victor emerging as the new hegemon.

However, there was no hegemonic war between Rome and Britain and neither was there one between Britain and America. There were however numerous hegemonic wars in the case of other lesser known (no shit) hegemons.

Many people argue that the Cold War was a hegemonic war itself. In this case though, there were two challengers. The hegemon (Britain) had lost her power after World War II, and two challengers to the throne emerged, US and Soviet Union. On October 6th 1989, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the news was offcial, we had a new hegemon, the United States (la di da).

There are two schools of thought as to what hegemony is based upon. One explanation is that hegemony is based on coercion. This means that the hegemon maintains its power solely by the threat of it. So everyone follows its will because they'll get blown out of the water if they don't. This case can be made for all three major hegemons of the past.

Another school of thought contends that hegemony is maintained by consent in combination with, to a lesser degree, coercion. This idea first propagated by Antonio Gramsci, basically looks at hegemony as concentual power. A hegemon maintains its power because many other countries are content with it being in power. It has to use its coercive measures sometimes but many a times it gets its way because other countries know that they are maximising their profit by just going along with the hegemon.

I think the latter explanation of hegemony is better. The Uniited States is a perfect example of this type of hegemony. This is why nations like Japan, Germany, China, France etc. have never militarily challenged the US. Why would they? They are getting the maximum profit they can acheive under the current system. Why shuffle the board and take a chance at what happens when you are guaranteed heavy profits within the current system.

All this was pre Sept 11th (as most political subjects today are).

One other thing to know about hegemony is that it is easier to attain than to maintain. A hegemon's decline lies in its fundamental hopes to maintain its status. This is where Sept 11th comes in. It can be marked, according to many as the official decline of American hegemony.

All the signs are present. Other countries have rebelled. Canada, France, Germany and other powerful (economically and in terms of status) have not consented with the hegemon. The US economy is losing billions in America's hopes to maintain its hegemony. In October 2001, just months after that fateful day in September, The Los Angeles Times reported that, "The cost of the war on terrorism since Sept. 11 is estimated to be $40 billion, just for this year. That includes at least $20 billion for the military; $7 billion for recovery and relief in New York and at the Pentagon; $3 billion to fight bioterrorism; $2 billion for more security at dams, power plants and federal buildings; and $600 million to secure our airports and aircraft."

Moreover, the first month of the Iraq conflict alone cost America close to $80 billion. So you can see that the with the US economy in its biggest lull in decades, and the US spending droves of money in its efforts to cement its power, the future of thsi hegemon looks in disarray.

However, before we celebrate, remember that unless a new system of governance and international equilibrium is established, we will have another hegemon at some point. One imperial power is as bad as another. Moreover, how will this hegemon emerge? Will it be through a war (possibly nuclear)? or will there be another Cold War? or will it be peaceful, with one power in a significant economic crisis and another taking over silently?

I believe that the answers to these questions and many more will unfold over the next decade. Stay tuned.