David Gress, whom I thank heartily for inviting me, gave me a theme entitled “Toward a transpolitical world order”. In the title, the word “toward” is ambiguous, since it can be understood in two ways, either as an exposition of my wishes about what kind of world order I would like or as an analysis of the world order which, in my view as a scholar, is emerging now and will be the most likely in the next decades. Of course, my wishes, as anybody else’s, are entirely pointless. Consequently, I will try to grasp in a few words the essentials of three linked points:
1. We are now living through a period of transition between a dipolar and an oligopolar world order;
2. An oligopolar transpolitical order is, by nature, organized by a constraining set of rules;
3. The likeliest players of the nearing oligopolar game have not been raised by their histories to play according to the rules, so the transition should be rather rough than smooth.
It is always useful and even necessary to precisely define the words we use. What is the precise meaning of “transpolitical”? It applies to a whole, which is made up of elements called polities. A polity is a social entity, whose constituent elements can manage their conflicts without turning to violence. Between two polities, the absence of proceedings able to resolve peacefully the conflicts has the consequence that any conflict can always turn to violence and degenerate into war. Then, a polity is a social space of tendential peace and a transpolity is a social space of virtual or potential war…