Soft Power Polls and the Fate of Liberal Democracy

Melissa Nisbett, J. Rofe
{"title":"Soft Power Polls and the Fate of Liberal Democracy","authors":"Melissa Nisbett, J. Rofe","doi":"10.1525/gp.2022.33108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since entering mainstream discourse, the term “soft power” has become more popular than ever. The last ten years has seen the emergence of a number of international polls that rank countries based on their soft power. These rankings have not just coincided with the rise in significance of soft power; they have actively shaped how the term is used and understood. Yet they remain unexamined. This article critically analyzes two of these polls: the Monocle Soft Power Survey and the Portland Soft Power 30 Ranking. While the analysis reveals substantial methodological flaws, this article ultimately concludes that these flaws are irrelevant. The polls neglect the broader context within which they sit and only partially engage with. Further, the polls overstate the primacy of the Western liberal order, while underplaying a creeping authoritarian threat at a time when liberal democracy is in peril. What is more, by recognizing and even celebrating the soft power gains of autocratic regimes, the polls give exposure and airtime to tyrants and autocracies, thereby legitimating them both domestically and overseas. The polls therefore demonstrate, inadvertently, that soft power has relevance beyond the West but do not recognize that it can be used strategically against the West for geopolitical gain. These polls have real-world consequences in shaping soft power at a time of both growing authoritarianism and liberal retreat, and, as such, they are implicated in the future and fate of Western democracy.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global health perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2022.33108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since entering mainstream discourse, the term “soft power” has become more popular than ever. The last ten years has seen the emergence of a number of international polls that rank countries based on their soft power. These rankings have not just coincided with the rise in significance of soft power; they have actively shaped how the term is used and understood. Yet they remain unexamined. This article critically analyzes two of these polls: the Monocle Soft Power Survey and the Portland Soft Power 30 Ranking. While the analysis reveals substantial methodological flaws, this article ultimately concludes that these flaws are irrelevant. The polls neglect the broader context within which they sit and only partially engage with. Further, the polls overstate the primacy of the Western liberal order, while underplaying a creeping authoritarian threat at a time when liberal democracy is in peril. What is more, by recognizing and even celebrating the soft power gains of autocratic regimes, the polls give exposure and airtime to tyrants and autocracies, thereby legitimating them both domestically and overseas. The polls therefore demonstrate, inadvertently, that soft power has relevance beyond the West but do not recognize that it can be used strategically against the West for geopolitical gain. These polls have real-world consequences in shaping soft power at a time of both growing authoritarianism and liberal retreat, and, as such, they are implicated in the future and fate of Western democracy.
软实力民调与自由民主的命运
自从进入主流话语以来,“软实力”一词比以往任何时候都更加流行。在过去的十年里,出现了许多基于软实力对国家进行排名的国际民意调查。这些排名不仅与软实力的重要性上升相吻合;他们积极地塑造了这个术语的使用和理解方式。然而,它们仍未得到检验。本文批判性地分析了其中的两个民意调查:单片软实力调查和波特兰软实力30强排名。虽然分析揭示了大量的方法缺陷,但本文最终得出的结论是,这些缺陷是无关紧要的。民意调查忽略了他们所处的更广泛的背景,只是部分参与。此外,民意调查夸大了西方自由秩序的首要地位,而在自由民主处于危险之中的时候,却低估了一种悄悄蔓延的威权主义威胁。更重要的是,通过承认甚至庆祝专制政权的软实力增长,民意调查给暴君和独裁政权提供了曝光和播放时间,从而使他们在国内外都合法化。因此,民意调查无意中表明,软实力在西方之外具有相关性,但没有意识到它可以被用于战略上对抗西方,以获得地缘政治利益。这些民意调查对塑造软实力有着现实世界的影响,在这个威权主义和自由主义都在增长的时代,因此,它们与西方民主的未来和命运有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信