Unipolarity refers to a system where the concentration of power is on one unit. For example, the United States of America is the sole superpower. On the other hand bipolarity refers to system where there are two opposing superpowers; for example, the USA and the potential candidate, China. Multipolarity refers to a system with more than three opposing superpowers with each superpower unit made of many nations coming together (Meltz, 1994). This essay seeks to find out which is the most stable one.
Unipolarity is considered the least stable system since it has been termed as incapable of dealing with the transnational problems in the modern world. Moreover, it is seen as an abnormal system currently since countries in the modern world prefer dispersion of power (Meltz, 1994). On the other hand, many perceive bipolarity would lead to ideological conflict for example the one that led to the cold war where there was the United States and her allies and the Soviet Union as the superpowers.
Moreover, any conflict that would characterize the bipolar systems would likely use the military to deter or enforce superpower control over other nations (Meltz, 1994). This would mean multi-polarity is the most stable system of the three since it is more flexible. This kind of system requires more than three core units for the system to be a reality and this makes it possible for the diffusion of power and coalitions which are instrumental for the preservation of the system.
The future multipolar systems may include; Western Hemisphere which would be led by the US, Europe which would have Germany as the leader, Japan would take over the leadership of the Pacific rim, Asia would be under China and the Islamic world would be under Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq (Meltz, 1994). In such a system, the major conflict would come within the blocs but not between them. For example, it would be a rare scenario to have a major conflict between Europe and the Islamic bloc but it is possible to have one between Islamic countries that form the Islamic bloc.
For instance, the countries that make the Islamic bloc have faced intense leadership conflicts since the demise of Prophet Muhammad. The stability of the multi polar system relies on the stability within the blocs that make up the system, and in the process, the blocs would often maintain peace within selves. For example, the United States, France and United Kingdom which belonged to one bloc once intervened in the Russian civil war with the aim of stabilizing it since it was a member of the bloc (Meltz, 1994).
Moreover, in the same system, conflicts are usually solved through international law, mediation and diplomacy and this makes it more flexible than other systems. In the corporative multipolar system, it would be easy for members to move from one bloc to another. Moreover, the role of the military would be limited and they would mainly be used for maintaining internal order and solving conflicts within the states. For example, the multi-polarity of Russia has helped in building political consensus in the domestic Russia. (Kratochvil, 2002) In conclusion, multi-polarity is the most stable of them all due to its flexibility.
This is because it uses diplomacy, international law and mediation in solving conflicts. Moreover the more than the three elements that are required to make up the system provides for preservation of the system
Kratochvil, P. (2002). Multipolarity: America theory and Russian practice. Retrieved from http://se2. isn. ch/serviceengine/Files/EINIRAS/31431/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/59AF449B-E146-4050-A020-C6C1CCEAB215/en/2002-00-Multipolarity. pdf Meltz, S. (1994). The army and the future of the international system. Retrieved from http://www. carlisle. army. mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/1994/metz. htm