The West’s moment ends, a multi-civilisational world rises

The early 21st century is often described as a return to multipolarity, a world where power is distributed among several major states rather than concentrated in a single hegemon. However, the changes now unfolding may be more profound than a simple redistribution of geopolitical power. What is emerging may not merely be a multipolar system, but a multi-civilisational world: one in which different cultural and philosophical traditions re-enter the global political stage and jointly shape the international order.

Over the past 250 years, Western civilisation — first Europe, and later the Anglo-American world — has held overwhelming global dominance. The Industrial Revolution, colonial expansion and the rise of Atlantic capitalism enabled Europe, and subsequently the US, to reshape global institutions according to their own ideas. Liberal democracy, capitalist markets, the nation-state system and international law gradually became the dominant framework of modern political organisation.

Yet this dominance is, in historical terms, a particular phase rather than the norm. Before the modern era, China and India occupied central positions in the global economy. In 1820, these two civilisations together accounted for half of the world’s GDP. By the mid-20th century, however, as Western industrialisation and imperial expansion reshaped the global economic structure, their share had fallen to about 9%.

Today, this historical pattern is reversing. China has re-emerged as the world’s second-largest economy by nominal GDP and ranks first in purchasing power parity; India is also rising rapidly, driven by its demographic scale and economic growth. This shift is not merely statistical — it represents a transfer of political voice and influence. With Asia’s resurgence, ancient civilisations are returning to the global stage.

The rise of the West was built not only on economic and military power, but also on a particular philosophy of history.

The Abrahamic traditions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — share a linear conception of time. History begins with creation, unfolds through revelation and redemption, and ultimately culminates in a final judgement. History is thus understood as having a clear direction and endpoint.

When the Enlightenment secularised Western thought, this structure did not disappear. Progress replaced redemption, reason replaced revelation, yet the idea that history moves towards an ultimate goal remained intact.

Western political ideologies inherited this framework. Both liberalism and Marxism claim universal applicability and seek to provide a final model for organising human society. Within this tradition, history appears destined to converge towards a universal political form.

In 1989, Francis Fukuyama argued in his paper “The End of History?” that liberal democracy might represent the end of ideological evolution. However, this view was quickly challenged. Then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously remarked: “End of history? The beginning of nonsense!” 

Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew likewise argued that history is far more complex and cannot end in a single system.

Such critiques suggest that the “end of history” thesis may simply mistake two centuries of Western experience for the universal trajectory of human civilisation.

China and India have long developed historical perspectives distinct from that of the West.

In traditional Chinese political thought, history is often seen as cyclical. Dynasties rise, flourish, decay and collapse, only to be replaced by new ones. The “Mandate of Heaven” grants legitimacy to rulers, but this legitimacy is not permanent — it depends on effective governance.

Indian civilisation, by contrast, holds an even grander cosmological sense of time. The Hindu concept of yuga describes vast cosmic cycles. History is not linear, but unfolds through recurring cycles of rise and decline over immense spans of time.

This sense of historical continuity challenges Western universalism: if different civilisations can build stable social orders based on distinct intellectual traditions, then Western institutions are no longer universal, but rather products of a particular cultural context.

European encounters with China and India in the 17th and 18th centuries triggered profound intellectual unease. Reports brought back by Jesuit missionaries suggested that China possessed a continuous historical record extending far beyond the timeline derived from the Bible.

This discovery raised troubling questions in Europe: if Chinese civilisation had existed for millennia without Christian revelation, could biblical history truly be universal?

China also presented an alternative political ethic. The traditional concept of “Heaven” (天, tian) functioned more as a moral principle than a personal deity. Governance relied on ethical philosophy, bureaucratic institutions and social order rather than divine covenant.

Indian civilisation reinforced this challenge. Its religious traditions emphasised pluralism and multiple paths to truth. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire cited the antiquity of Indian civilisation to argue that biblical history might be merely a local tradition, not the centre of human history.

These encounters forced Europe to confront an unsettling possibility: the West was not the centre of world civilisation.

Yet over the following two centuries, Western imperial expansion obscured these civilisational challenges. Colonial power brought not only military and economic control, but also epistemic authority. Western institutions became global standards, and Western political ideas were widely regarded as markers of progress.

Over time, the West ceased to see itself as one civilisation among many but increasingly as the sole template for modernity. This belief deeply influenced Western foreign policy. From democracy promotion to regime-change strategies, many Western governments assumed that other societies would eventually converge towards liberal democracy.

The rise of China has unsettled this assumption. The sustained success of a powerful non-Western development model suggests that modernisation does not necessarily equate to Westernisation, with profound implications for development pathways across the Global South.

India’s history presents another path of civilisational revival. British colonial rule not only reshaped political structures but also sought to transform Indian consciousness. Thomas Macaulay’s educational reforms aimed to create an elite “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect” — a process some scholars describe as the “colonisation of the mind”.

Contemporary Indian politics can, in part, be seen as a response to this legacy. The rise of Hindu nationalism and the long-term rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party under Narendra Modi are often interpreted as expressions of renewed civilisational confidence.

The resurgence of China and India thus reintroduces civilisational diversity.

As global economic structures shift, so too does civilisational discourse. China does not seek to export a universal ideology, but emphasises sovereignty, non-interference and pragmatic development. India combines democratic institutions with a strong sense of civilisational identity.

These trends suggest that the future world order may not revolve around a single universal idea, but rather around interaction and negotiation among multiple civilisational frameworks.

The world is undergoing one of the most profound transformations in modern history. For two centuries, Western civilisation defined the boundaries of global political possibility. As economic power redistributes towards Asia, this intellectual foundation is weakening.

China, India and other civilisations are reasserting their legitimacy. The future international order may take the form of a multi-civilisational balance: multiple systems coexisting, rather than being dominated by a single ideology. Multipolarity redistributes power; a multi-civilisational order redistributes meaning. The central question of the 21st century is whether such diversity can coexist peacefully.

The most visible geopolitical manifestation of this historical transformation is the competition between the US and China.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US’s grand strategy has sought to maintain global primacy through military superiority, control of key strategic routes, and preservation of a dollar-centred financial system.

China, by contrast, advances a different vision, emphasising multipolarity, sovereign equality and reform of global governance.

The Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz crisis illustrate how energy routes, financial systems, and geopolitical alliances are increasingly intertwined with US-China rivalry. Due to nuclear deterrence, direct great-power war remains unlikely; competition instead plays out across economic, technological and geopolitical domains.

The future world is unlikely to return to a stable US-led order, nor will it coalesce into a unified China-led system. More plausibly, it will become a fragmented multipolar landscape, with regional blocs, technological decoupling, shifting alliances and persistent competition.

The key question for the coming decades is whether the US can adapt to a multipolar world, or whether efforts to sustain unipolar dominance will intensify global tensions.

The West’s 250-year moment may be drawing to a close, but this does not necessarily mean Western decline. Rather, it may signal a broader historical rebalancing of economic power, cultural narratives and civilisational voices.

The future world will not be a post-Western world — but it will be a post–single civilisation world.

Related: The global polytunity | [Video] George Yeo: America’s deep pain — and why China won’t colonise