Selective Hegemony

Introduction

Today’s world faces a condition that can no longer be adequately explained through the classical concepts of international relations. The United States, a country that for decades portrayed itself as the architect, guardian, and leader of the liberal democratic order, is now redefining its role in a contradictory and problematic manner. On the one hand, Washington is shirking the costly responsibilities of global leadership: it retreats from security and environmental commitments, weakens international institutions, and sidelines multilateralism. On the other hand, it continues to strive relentlessly to preserve the exclusive benefits of hegemonic power—from dollar dominance and technological superiority to control over supply chains and the exercise of economic coercion. This dual condition can be explained through a central concept: Selective Hegemony.

More precisely, Selective Hegemony refers to a situation in which a dominant power accepts hegemonic commitments only “selectively,” while refusing to relinquish the structural benefits of hegemony. Within this framework, the United States neither fully exits the global order nor is it willing to bear the costs of maintaining it. It is precisely at this point that the crisis begins: a crisis that is not merely a sign of American decline, but rather an expression of the collapse of the liberal democratic model of leadership on a global scale.

In this context, Donald Trump should not be seen as the primary cause of this transformation, but rather as an accelerator of a deeper process. The “America First” policy, withdrawal from international agreements, attacks on NATO, disregard for climate change, and extensive reliance on trade tariffs are all clear indicators of America’s shift toward a form of hegemonic isolationism—an isolationism intertwined with strategic mercantilism and accompanied by the erosion of liberal leadership. Nevertheless, the issue is not confined to a single administration or a limited period; rather, it reflects a structural change in the logic of American action within the international system.

Accordingly, the central question of this article is as follows: How does the United States seek to retreat from international engagements while simultaneously preserving its monopoly over key domains of the economy, technology, and political power? And more importantly, what implications does this Selective Hegemony have for the future of liberal democracy worldwide? By articulating a set of supporting concepts around the central signifier of Selective Hegemony, this article seeks to demonstrate how the weakening of American leadership has not only hollowed out the existing liberal order, but has also rendered the need to think about an alternative democratic discourse—independent of the United States—an urgent matter.

1. Conceptualizing Selective Hegemony: Power Without Responsibility

To understand the current position of the United States in the international system, one must first overcome a conceptual deficit. Concepts such as “isolationism,” “hegemonic decline,” or “economic nationalism,” while illuminating certain aspects of reality, are incapable of explaining the internal logic of American behavior. The issue is not that the United States has relinquished its global power, nor that it has simply retreated behind its borders; rather, the problem lies in a specific redefinition of hegemony that can be termed Selective Hegemony.

What Is Selective Hegemony?

Selective Hegemony refers to a condition in which a dominant power separates the components of hegemony from one another: on the one hand, it abandons the political, security, and moral responsibilities of leading the international order; on the other hand, it insists on preserving structural interests, exclusive privileges, and instruments of power projection. In this model, the hegemon no longer considers itself obligated to produce “global public goods”—security, stability, shared rules—yet expects others to continue operating within an order that delivers the greatest benefits to itself.

In other words, Selective Hegemony represents a form of “power without responsibility.” The United States seeks to enjoy the advantages of the global liberal order—from dollar dominance and the financial system to technological superiority and the right to impose sanctions—without paying the political, economic, and normative costs of sustaining that order. This is precisely the point of rupture with classical post–World War II liberal hegemony; a hegemony that, at least at the discursive level, linked power with commitment.

Distinguishing Selective Hegemony from Isolationism and Hegemonic Decline

Unlike classical isolationism, Selective Hegemony does not mean a complete withdrawal from the international system. The United States has neither dismantled its military bases, nor abandoned its instruments of economic pressure, nor ceased intervening in global supply chains. What has been abandoned is “commitment to the order,” not “control over the order.” For this reason, the concept of “hegemonic isolationism,” as one of the supporting signifiers, finds its meaning within Selective Hegemony: retreat from commitments without retreat from dominance.

Nor can this condition be understood merely as a sign of American hegemonic decline. Decline usually refers to a reduction in material capacity or structural inability; yet the United States continues to possess unparalleled economic, military, and technological power. The issue is less one of incapacity than of “refusal”: refusal to pay the costs of leadership, refusal of multilateralism, and refusal to accept responsibility for the global consequences of its domestic policies.

Selective Hegemony as a Discursive Logic

The importance of the concept of Selective Hegemony lies not only in describing American behavior, but also in revealing a new discursive logic. Within this logic, the United States no longer sees itself as the leader of the liberal world, but as an “exceptional” actor that reserves the right to choose when to follow the rules and when to ignore them. The international order, in this framework, is not a shared commitment but a resource to be exploited selectively.

The consequence of such a logic is the hollowing out of the liberal order’s normative content. The rules remain, but their moral and political guarantees disappear. Institutions persist, but without leadership. And liberal democracy, as a global project, turns into a narrative devoid of credible backing. In the following sections, it will be shown how concepts such as hegemonic isolationism, strategic mercantilism, and the decline of liberal leadership are all articulated within this discourse of Selective Hegemony, and how their concrete manifestations in U.S. domestic and foreign policy have contributed to the weakening of democracy on a global scale.

2. Hegemonic Isolationism: Withdrawal from Commitments, Not from Dominance

Selective Hegemony cannot be understood without grasping the logic of “hegemonic isolationism.” If Selective Hegemony constitutes the central signifier of this discourse, hegemonic isolationism is one of its most important supporting signifiers—a concept that illustrates how the United States seeks simultaneously to escape the burden of international commitments while retaining the instruments of power. In this framework, isolation does not mean genuine disengagement from the world, but rather a selective liberation from responsibilities.

What Is Hegemonic Isolationism?

Hegemonic isolationism refers to a condition in which a dominant power abandons costly and constraining interactions while leaving intact networks of influence, levers of pressure, and mechanisms of structural domination. This form of isolationism, unlike the classical nineteenth-century model, is neither accompanied by a reduction in military and economic presence nor by a renunciation of intervention in the affairs of others. What is eliminated is “reciprocal commitment”; what remains is the “unilateral right to decide.”

This logic is clearly observable in U.S. foreign policy toward allies, international institutions, and global issues—where the United States preserves its hegemonic role while relinquishing leadership.

NATO: Security as a Transaction, Not a Commitment

NATO is one of the clearest manifestations of hegemonic isolationism. The United States, particularly during the Trump era, reduced the foundational principle of collective defense from a political–security commitment to a financial transaction. Threats of withdrawal, pressure on allies to increase financial contributions, and the questioning of Article 5 all demonstrated that the United States no longer produces security as a “public good,” but rather views it as conditional, priced, and reversible.

Nevertheless, this retreat from commitment in no way meant a reduction in American influence over Europe’s security architecture. Bases remained, command structures were preserved, and Europe’s strategic dependence on the U.S. security umbrella continued. This is precisely the logic of Selective Hegemony: reduced responsibility without reduced control.

The Environment: The Most Global Issue, the Most National Response

The climate crisis is a decisive test of global leadership, and in this test the United States has consciously relinquished its leadership role. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, disregard for the transboundary consequences of energy policies, and prioritization of short-term domestic interests all reflect hegemonic isolationism in its purest form.

The contradiction lies here: the United States is one of the largest producers of pollutants, yet it refuses to assume responsibility commensurate with its power. At the same time, it continues to seek to shape energy market rules, green technologies, and supply routes in its own favor. The result is the weakening of global cooperation and the deepening of distrust toward the liberal order.

International Institutions: Undermining from Within

Hegemonic isolationism toward international institutions operates not through total withdrawal, but through gradual and targeted weakening. Attacks on the World Trade Organization, disregard for dispute settlement mechanisms, withdrawal from or threats to withdraw from the World Health Organization, and political pressure on UN-affiliated bodies all indicate that the United States no longer views these institutions as instruments of collective governance, but accepts them only insofar as they do not constrain its freedom of action.

Within this framework, multilateralism is downgraded from a normative principle to a tactical option. Institutions remain, but their authority erodes; rules exist, but their enforceability weakens. This situation creates fertile ground for authoritarian actors to justify their own disregard for rules by pointing to American behavior.

The Discursive Consequences of Hegemonic Isolationism

Ultimately, hegemonic isolationism leads to the hollowing out of liberal leadership itself. When the hegemon refuses to act responsibly, the international order becomes a set of rules without a guarantor. Under such conditions, not only does the trust of allies erode, but the legitimacy of liberal democracy itself is also damaged—because the values that claimed universality no longer have a credible bearer.

In the next section, it will be shown how this hegemonic isolationism becomes intertwined with strategic mercantilism, and how the United States seeks to compensate for the vacuum of political leadership by intensifying economic and technological domination—an effort that, in turn, fuels deeper contradictions within the global liberal order.

3. Strategic Mercantilism: The National Economy as a Hegemonic Instrument

If hegemonic isolationism signifies the United States’ retreat from political and institutional commitments, strategic mercantilism shows how this retreat is compensated for through intensified economic intervention and technological control. Selective Hegemony does not merely mean abandoning leadership; rather, it represents an effort to preserve superiority through a different path—one in which the economy, technology, and supply chains are transformed into the primary instruments of power.

What Is Strategic Mercantilism?

Strategic mercantilism refers to a policy in which the state, contrary to the principles of economic liberalism, actively intervenes in the market in order to preserve or reproduce national competitive advantages. This intervention is not undertaken solely to protect domestic industries, but to consolidate a hegemonic position within the global order. Within this framework, free trade, fair competition, and shared rules are considered valid only insofar as they contribute to the strengthening of national power.

For the United States, strategic mercantilism has become a tool through which it seeks to remain the center of gravity of the global economy and technological system without accepting hegemonic responsibilities—an effort that stands in structural contradiction to its liberal democratic claims.

Tariffs and Trade Wars: The End of the Liberal Consensus

U.S. tariff policy—particularly toward China, but also against European allies—marks a turning point in the transition from economic liberalism to strategic mercantilism. The imposition of heavy tariffs, threats of trade wars, and the use of trade as an instrument of political pressure demonstrated that Washington no longer considers itself committed to a rules-based trade order.

The contradiction lies in the fact that this very trade order has been one of the main foundations of American economic power. By weakening the World Trade Organization and disregarding dispute settlement mechanisms, the United States has not only eroded the legitimacy of this order but has also encouraged other actors to violate the rules. The result is a world in which economic competition increasingly submits to the logic of coercion and political pressure.

Concentration of Advanced Industries and Technologies: The State at the Heart of the Market

American strategic mercantilism is especially evident in the domain of advanced technologies. Policies such as extensive support for the semiconductor industry, the reshoring of critical supply chains, and restricting competitors’ access to sensitive technologies all signal the return of the state to the heart of the market. These interventions, although justified through the language of national security, in practice signify the end of belief in a truly global free market.

The United States seeks to pursue two contradictory objectives simultaneously: on the one hand, reducing interdependence, and on the other, maintaining monopoly positions within global production networks. Yet these two goals cannot be reconciled without international cooperation and trust. Technological monopoly in a world where shared rules have been weakened will sooner or later encounter structural resistance.

The Fundamental Contradiction of Selective Hegemony in the Global Economy

Strategic mercantilism ultimately exposes the internal contradiction of Selective Hegemony. The United States seeks to benefit from globalization without adhering to its requirements. It wants access to global markets while refusing to accept responsibility for their stability. This approach not only undermines the trust of partners, but also lays the groundwork for the formation of rival economic blocs and parallel orders.

From a discursive perspective, strategic mercantilism reveals how American liberal democracy is hollowed out from within: proclaimed values are preserved, but in practice they give way to a logic of survival and unregulated competition. In the next section, this gap between claim and practice will be examined at the normative level, and it will be shown how the decline of liberal leadership has led to a crisis of democratic legitimacy on a global scale.

4. The Decline of Liberal Leadership: A Crisis of Legitimacy at the Heart of Selective Hegemony

Hegemony is not based solely on material power; what turns a power into a leader is its ability to produce meaning, legitimacy, and shared norms. In this sense, American liberal democracy has been not only a domestic political system, but also a global narrative—a narrative that promised that power could be combined with law, national interest with global responsibility, and security with freedom. Selective Hegemony, however, has hollowed out this narrative from within and has led to the decline of liberal leadership on a global scale.

Liberal Leadership as a Normative Narrative

After the Second World War, American leadership rested on a form of linkage between power and values. Human rights, the rule of law, free elections, and multilateralism were not only sources of legitimacy for U.S. foreign policy, but also constitutive elements of the global liberal order. Even costly or controversial interventions were justified within the framework of defending these values.

Selective Hegemony severs this linkage. When the United States recognizes values only insofar as they impose no cost upon it, liberalism is reduced from a normative project to an instrumental language. Under such conditions, neither the claim to the universality of liberal democracy remains credible, nor does America’s leadership role in defending it appear convincing.

Domestic Manifestations: The Erosion of Model Status

The decline of liberal leadership is not solely a product of foreign policy, but is rooted in domestic developments within the United States. Crises of confidence in elections, the weakening of oversight institutions, extreme polarization, structural racism, and the attack on Congress are all indicators of internal erosion within American democracy. These developments have severely damaged the image of the United States as a “democratic model.”

Within the logic of Selective Hegemony, this domestic crisis is not confronted, but normalized. Democracy is no longer a value to be exported, but is treated as an internal matter that should not generate costs in foreign policy. The result is that the United States retreats even at the discursive level from active defense of democracy.

International Consequences: The Hollowing Out of Values

At the international level, the decline of liberal leadership has produced far-reaching consequences. Authoritarian governments exploit American behavior to justify domestic repression and disregard for human rights. Democratic allies view Washington’s normative commitments with skepticism, and civil societies in transitional countries see their political support eroded.

In this environment, liberal democracy gradually shifts from being a future-oriented project to a defensive inheritance—something to be protected rather than expanded. This is precisely the point at which Selective Hegemony inflicts its greatest damage: not through a direct assault on values, but by abandoning them.

Decline of Leadership or the End of Leadership?

The key point is that the decline of liberal leadership does not mean the end of the need for leadership. The world continues to face challenges that are unsolvable without cooperation, shared norms, and responsibility—from climate change and global inequality to security and technological crises. Yet in the absence of a committed leader, the liberal order is reduced to a collection of unsubstantiated claims.

In the next section, it will be shown how this leadership vacuum contributes to the reproduction and strengthening of authoritarianism at the global level, and how America’s Selective Hegemony inadvertently becomes one of the main factors weakening democracy beyond its own borders.

5. Selective Hegemony and the Reproduction of Authoritarianism in the International System

America’s Selective Hegemony is not limited to weakening the liberal order; it also unintentionally contributes to the reproduction and strengthening of authoritarianism on a global scale. When a power that once claimed democratic leadership retreats from its normative commitments, a vacuum emerges that is quickly filled by non-democratic actors. This vacuum is not only geopolitical, but also discursive—a vacuum that undermines the legitimacy of democracy at the global level.

Authoritarianism in the Shadow of Hegemonic Retreat

In the post–Cold War liberal order, even authoritarian governments were compelled to justify their behavior within a framework of international norms. Human rights, elections, and the rule of law, although never fully observed, nevertheless remained standards of legitimacy. Selective Hegemony alters this condition. When the United States withdraws from the active defense of these norms, normative pressure on authoritarian governments is sharply reduced.

China, Russia, and other authoritarian actors interpret this retreat not as an exception, but as a sign of the end of an era. They exploit American behavior to legitimize their own models of governance, claiming that liberalism itself has been nothing more than an instrument of power.

The Middle East: Abandoning Democratic Aspirations

The Middle East is one of the clearest arenas in which the consequences of Selective Hegemony are visible. The United States, which once at least at the discursive level supported political reform and democratic aspirations, now increasingly prioritizes authoritarian stability over democratic transformation. Deals with unaccountable regimes, disregard for human rights violations, and the prioritization of short-term security interests have sent a clear message to societies in the region: democracy is no longer on the agenda.

This shift has not only weakened pro-democracy forces, but has also reinforced authoritarian narratives—narratives that portray democracy as a failed project dependent on the will of external powers. In such an environment, liberalism ceases to be a horizon of the future and becomes a distant memory.

Global Authoritarianism and Alternative Orders

Selective Hegemony has also contributed to the emergence of parallel and alternative orders. China, by emphasizing economic development without political liberalism, and Russia, by promoting absolute state sovereignty and rejecting normative intervention, offer models that appear more attractive in the absence of liberal leadership. These models, particularly for governments weary of Western normative pressures, present a lower-cost alternative.

The contradiction lies in the fact that the United States, by abandoning its normative role, effectively helps to strengthen these very authoritarian orders—orders that are not only incompatible with liberal democracy, but may also, in the long run, lead to greater instability in the international system.

From Leadership Vacuum to a Global Democratic Crisis

Selective Hegemony demonstrates that the global democratic crisis does not arise solely from the rise of authoritarian powers, but also from the retreat of democracy’s defenders. When liberal leadership is emptied of meaning, democracy becomes a defenseless project—one that no longer enjoys political backing nor a clear horizon for expansion.

In the next section, the article’s constructive turn begins. The central question will be this: Can liberal democracy be reconstructed without reliance on the United States, and in the absence of a single hegemon? Answering this question requires a rethinking of leadership and the imagination of a multicentric, non–U.S.-centric order.

6. Is Liberal Democracy Possible Without the United States?

At first glance, the question of whether liberal democracy can survive without the United States may seem radical or even pessimistic. Yet in light of Selective Hegemony, this question is no longer a purely theoretical exercise, but a practical necessity. When the power that for decades presented itself as the bearer and guarantor of liberalism refuses to play this role, the defense of democracy must inevitably distance itself from its historical dependence on the United States.

Conceptual Rupture: Separating Values from Their Historical Carrier

The first step in reconstructing the liberal democratic discourse is to separate values from their historical carrier. Liberalism, human rights, and the rule of law are neither inherently American nor dependent on any single power. Nevertheless, the historical linkage of these values with American hegemony has led to the mistaken assumption that the decline of Washington’s leadership equates to the decline of democracy itself.

Selective Hegemony has rendered this linkage inoperative. Therefore, defending liberal democracy requires a conscious break with U.S.-centric liberalism and its redefinition as a multicentric, participatory, and transnational project—a project that derives its legitimacy not from military power, but from normative effectiveness and political accountability.

New Actors of Democratic Leadership

In the absence of committed U.S. leadership, a range of actors can assume complementary and alternative roles. The European Union, despite its structural shortcomings, has the capacity to evolve from an economic power into a more active normative actor. Emerging democracies, from Latin America to East Asia, can offer diverse experiences of adapting democracy to non-Western contexts.

Alongside states, the role of transnational civil societies, independent media, human rights institutions, and academic networks becomes increasingly important. These actors, unlike governments, are less entangled in the logic of geopolitical competition and can serve as more credible carriers of democratic values.

Redefining Leadership: From Hegemon to Network

One of the direct consequences of Selective Hegemony is the collapse of the unipolar leadership model. Yet this collapse does not necessarily lead to chaos. Its alternative may be the formation of a form of networked leadership—leadership based on cooperation, shared responsibility, and synergy rather than domination.

In such a model, legitimacy is not imposed from the top down, but produced through consensus, transparency, and accountability. Although slower and more costly than hegemonic leadership, this model is normatively more sustainable and more compatible with the spirit of democracy.

Liberal Democracy as an Open Project

Accepting that liberal democracy is possible without the United States does not mean denying the historical role of that country; rather, it means moving beyond monopoly—a monopoly that Selective Hegemony has rendered untenable. If democracy is to have a future, it must be able to free itself from dependence on a single power and become an open, pluralistic, and global project.

In the final section, this constructive trajectory will be translated into the realm of policymaking, and practical strategies for confronting the consequences of Selective Hegemony and reconstructing the democratic discourse at the global level will be presented.

7. Strategies for Confronting Selective Hegemony: Reconstructing the Democratic Discourse Without the United States

Selective Hegemony, while not diminishing American power, has weakened the legitimacy, norms, and credibility of liberal leadership. Confronting this condition requires a multilayered and transnational strategy—one that both fills the vacuum of normative leadership and reduces America’s economic and technological monopolies.

1. Strengthening Institutions Independent of the United States

The first step is to consolidate international and regional institutions. Organizations such as the European Union, ASEAN, the African Union, and other regional bodies can assume responsibility for enforcing democratic norms in place of a single hegemon. Redefining and strengthening these institutions not only generates normative legitimacy, but also reduces unilateral political pressures.

2. Democratic Convergence Without Reliance on Washington

The second step involves creating networks of cooperation among democracies—networks capable of ensuring security, economic stability, and normative legitimacy. Such cooperation may include regional security pacts, multilateral economic agreements, and shared technological mechanisms. The goal is to reduce dependence on the United States and to create collective weight for democracies.

3. Economic Diversification and Reducing Technological Dependence

America’s strategic mercantilism has demonstrated that dependence on key supply chains and technologies constitutes a vulnerability for democracies. Countering this risk requires economic diversification, investment in indigenous technologies, and the development of independent supply-chain networks. Through these measures, democratic states can activate their own economic power instruments in defense of democratic values.

4. Reconstructing and Expanding the Liberal Discourse

At the discursive level, confronting Selective Hegemony requires reconstructing the narrative of liberal democracy. This reconstruction entails emphasizing justice, equality, human rights, and global responsibility without reliance on any single power. Independent media, academic institutions, and civil society organizations play a key role in shaping and promoting this discourse.

5. Leveraging Networked Hegemony

Finally, the concept of networked leadership can replace unipolar hegemony. This networked hegemony is based on cooperation, transparency, and shared responsibility, and it can sustain democratic values at the global level. Instead of relying on the power of a single state, legitimacy is produced through performance, accountability, and synergy.

Strategic Summary

Confronting America’s Selective Hegemony is not merely an effort to oppose the policies of a single government; rather, it requires a fundamental rethinking of the structures of power, economy, technology, and the global discourse of democracy. By strengthening independent institutions, building democratic networks, and reconstructing the normative narrative, it is possible to pave the way out of the crisis of Selective Hegemony and to rebuild a hopeful horizon for liberal democracy without exclusive reliance on the United States.

Conclusion: After America, but Not After Democracy

America’s Selective Hegemony has shown that power without responsibility—however materially and technologically durable—cannot sustain a liberal democratic order. Retreat from political commitments, the weakening of international norms, and a focus on economic advantages have eroded the legitimacy of liberal leadership at the global level and created a vacuum for authoritarianism and parallel orders.

Nevertheless, the decline of American hegemony does not signify the end of liberal democracy. Its foundational values—human rights, the rule of law, justice, and freedom—can be reproduced independently of their historical carrier. This reproduction requires a break from dependence on a hegemonic power, the strengthening of independent institutions, democratic networking, economic and technological diversification, and the reconstruction of the normative discourse.

Within this vision, democratic leadership is no longer unipolar and hegemonic, but networked, multicentric, and accountable. Its legitimacy derives from cooperation and performance, not from the military or economic power of a particular country. In this way, the future of liberal democracy—even in the absence of the United States—is conceivable, sustainable, and hopeful.

The final question that invites the reader to reflect is this: Can the liberal world, without a hegemon but with solidarity and collective responsibility, reconstruct global order and justice? The answer to this question will shape not only future research and analysis, but also the practical strategies of future generations of democracy.