If there is one underestimated political trend that defined the global transformations of 2024, it is the erosion of value-based politics. This shift – a growing skepticism toward policies and alliances premised on shared values – has profoundly influenced international relations.
Key developments such as the rise of middle powers, the conservative wave in Europe and the resounding electoral success of Donald Trump in the United States all point to this underlying trend. Value-based approaches, which have underpinned Western foreign policy for decades, are increasingly seen as inadequate foundations for both domestic and international governance. While this perspective has long resonated with states outside Western influence, 2024 marked a watershed moment when the limitations of value-driven policy became undeniable within Western circles as well.
For much of the post-Cold War era, Western nations pursued a foreign policy centered on democratic values, human rights and the rule of law. This approach was instrumental in shaping alliances and fostering international cooperation. However, the global environment has shifted dramatically. Emerging powers in regions like Latin America, Middle East, Indo-Pacific and Central Asia have prioritized pragmatism over values, focusing on tangible economic and security benefits. As these actors gain influence, value-based narratives struggle to remain relevant in a multipolar world.
This erosion does not imply that values hold no benefit; quite the contrary. Democratic and liberal values rose to prominence because of their intrinsic benefits, which are realized in the economic and political gains that Western countries enjoy today. However, in the West, these processes were gradual and tailored to the specific needs of individual countries. Attempting to impose these values on all nations as a one-size-fits-all model often leads to poor outcomes, weakening the appeal of these values and, at worst, provoking pushback and resentment. This dynamic is exacerbated by external actors—some of whom are not benign—that exploit instability as a weapon. From this perspective, value-based policies that seek unity often result in further division.
The resurgence of conservatism in Europe and Trump’s victory in the U.S. underscore the growing appeal of transactional politics over ideological alignment. Leaders increasingly question the practicality of upholding abstract principles in the face of domestic challenges and international competition. Moreover, the dissonance between rhetoric and reality – evident in selective adherence to values – has further eroded the credibility of value-based policies. This disillusionment has created fertile ground for alternative approaches that prioritize national interests and pragmatism.
The problems of value-based politics in a multipolar world
The key problem with value-based politics lies in its origins: it stems from a sense of superiority cultivated during the era of a newly monopolar world. During this time, there was a belief that democratic and liberal values, as interpreted by the West, represented the sole viable path forward for global progress. However, this hypothesis has been tested by time and revealed a far more nuanced reality. The world is not a dichotomy of black and white but a spectrum of diverse shades of grey. In this increasingly complex and multipolar world, value-based politics lacks the depth and flexibility required for consistent and effective implementation. This deficiency has resulted in inconsistent applications and interpretations, which in turn fuel perceptions of double standards.
The contrasting interpretations of the war in Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provide poignant examples. These cases demonstrate how the application of values varies significantly depending on geopolitical interests and alignments. Such discrepancies weaken the credibility of value-driven policies and provoke skepticism or outright resentment from nations and populations that feel sidelined or misunderstood by these frameworks. These policies’ inability to adapt to regional complexities not only diminishes their effectiveness but also exacerbates the sense of alienation and distrust among affected nations.
The focus on shared values as a paramount factor has also deepened societal and political divisions in domestic politics. By framing opposing sides as having fundamentally incompatible values rather than differing interests, these narratives have widened rifts between political parties and their constituencies. The opposing side is often seen not merely as a competitor but as an ideological adversary, leading to an increasingly polarized and adversarial political climate.
This polarization has contributed to a general societal fatigue, evident in phenomena such as the ‘conservative wave’ that swept across Europe. This wave unified disparate groups who opposed various aspects of value-based policies—including globalization skeptics, nationalists, and populists—into a broad coalition of resistance. In the United States, a similar backlash occurred, compounded by widespread disillusionment with the media. The surprising outcomes of elections left many questioning the underlying assumptions about political consensus and societal cohesion.
These developments raise critical questions about the limits of freedom and the consequences of imposing more freedom on those who resist it. Excessive attempts to implement value-based policies can provoke strong negative reactions, not just against controversial measures but even against fundamentally beneficial ones. This pushback underscores the need for a recalibrated approach that acknowledges the diversity of societal contexts and the risks of overreach.
Central Asia and the shift to pragmatic politics
Central Asia—a region historically shaped by its strategic location and intersection of great power interests—offers a unique lens through which to examine the decline of value-based politics. The region’s leaders have long eschewed ideological alignment, opting instead for a multivector approach that balances relationships with major powers such as Russia, China, and the United States. In this context, the erosion of values-driven diplomacy aligns with Central Asia’s established practice of prioritizing stability, sovereignty, and economic development.
The diminishing utility of value-based policies is also evident in that different Western nations apply different strategies to the region. Since 2022, the EU and the U.K. have adopted a much more pragmatic stance on Central Asia, focusing on developing mutually beneficial cooperation alongside the Middle Corridor. Meanwhile, the United States has yet to establish a strategic approach to the region, resulting in inconsistent and sporadic relations. This lack of a cohesive U.S. strategy highlights the challenges of aligning value-based rhetoric with practical engagement in a multipolar world.
The region’s leaders are likely to favor partnerships that deliver concrete outcomes, such as infrastructure investment, energy cooperation, and security guarantees. This pragmatism has already been evident in the growing influence of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s renewed focus on Central Asia as part of its ‘pivot to the East’.
While pragmatism offers immediate benefits, the abandonment of values-driven policy is not without risks. To adapt to the shifting global order, Central Asia must embrace a nuanced approach that balances pragmatism with the pursuit of shared principles. While immediate priorities may center on economic and security partnerships, the region’s long-term resilience depends on fostering good governance, transparency and regional cooperation.
For Western nations, the decline of values-driven diplomacy calls for a recalibration of their engagement strategies. Rather than abandoning principles altogether, they should integrate them into pragmatic frameworks that align with the priorities of partner states. By demonstrating the tangible benefits of governance reforms and inclusive policies, Western nations can remain relevant players in Central Asia and beyond.
The replacement of value-based approaches with pragmatic, interest-driven policies offers significant benefits for Central Asia. A focus on mutual benefit and concrete outcomes enables the region to deepen relations with the United States under the Trump administration and expand European Union engagement in critical infrastructure projects, such as the Middle Corridor. Crucially, this can be achieved without undermining the fundamentals of Central Asia’s multivector policy or aggravating relations with major regional powers like China and Russia.
Central Asia’s strategic pragmatism—prioritizing stability, sovereignty, and economic development—has already positioned it as a region adept at balancing competing interests. By embracing an approach centered on shared interests rather than imposed values, the region can further its development while maintaining the geopolitical equilibrium necessary for long-term resilience. The focus on pragmatic partnerships also mitigates the risks of external exploitation, ensuring that Central Asia’s unique position in the multipolar world remains an asset rather than a vulnerability.
The author is Miras Zhiyenbayev, the head of the Foreign Policy and International Studies Program at MIND, the Maqsut Narikbayev Institute for Networking and Development, a university-based think tank at Maqsut Narikbayev University. He has authored the book “Widening the Scope: How Middle Powers are Changing Liberal Institutionalism” at the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS).
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Astana Times.
