AHC: Most powerful liberal democratic hegemon by 1980

With a POD after 1700, what is the most powerful liberal democratic hegemon you can get by 1980? By liberal democratic hegemon, I mean a united nation or empire that promotes liberal democratic values around the world. By most powerful, I mean the ability to project power beyond its own borders to influence others towards its own values.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
As always when looking in this general "direction", the answer is simple: curb revolutionary radicalism, so that moderate Enlightenment remains utterly dominant. This will then avoid mass slaughter by frenzied radicals, while a lot of aristocrats and upper middle class types stay wholly in favour of Enlightenment reforms. Free trade becomes the norm in France (which becomes a consitutional monarchy after the fical situation becomes too critical to let things stand as they have until then), and an early Anglo-French detente commences. No Anglo-French wars involving republics or Bonapartes here!

This means no Quasi-War or War of 1812, either. In the USA, the more enthousiastic democratic reformers never adopt the more bloodlust-inspired French radicalism, and on the flip-side never get associated with the Terror in France. A youthful idealism of American virtues lasts longer, and politics are less acrimonious. Without the Anglo-French conflict, all sides agree that nothing stands in the way of American friendship towards both. An Era of Good Feelings dawns earlier. The USA, the British Empire and the French Empire slowly move towards becoming (at least de facto) a giant (more-or-less-)free trade zone.

Other nations are dragged into this orbit. Never invaded by France, and having an example of reforming successes rather than wild revolutions, the smaller countries of Europe begin to imitate the policies of the nascent "Atlantic alliance". Without the enlightenment gaining a bad rep in certain quarters (which was due to revolutionary radicalism and bloodshed), the enlightenment internationalism of the Enlightenment never wholly dies out. The old idea of an intellectual "Republic of Letters" that transcends borders slowly evolves into the ideal of an alliance of liberal powers, who do not wage war against each other, and attempt to hold themselves -- and the world -- to certain standards. this idea will fall short time and again in practice, as is always the case, but the idea lives, and remains a goal.

The Duch Republic eventually sees the intellectual heirs of the Patriotic Movement achieve their general goals. Reforms in the Habsburg Monarchy -- brutally cut off when the French Revolution escalated in OTL -- continue on. There are pitfalls, but no fatal falls. Through trial and error, things get better over time. The German states and the Italian ones are far less pressured to unite, as they are not invaded by French armies. They form confederal leages, mostly to ensure free trade, and likewise engage in free trade with the greater liberal powers. Germany in particular, never develops its anti-Napoleinic and thus anti-French and anti-Enlightenment type of Romanticism, and the HRE gets slowly transfotmed into a confederal Germany that the Frankfurt Parliament would have been proud of.

A Greek revolt still happens, and the joint intervention of France, Britain and Russia sees it succeed to a far greater degree than in OTL (liberating all greek-majority areas in the Ottoman Empire). This sees the Balkan states find independence as well. Divided on what to do there, the Austrians and Russians agree on making all Balkan states joint protectorates with guaranteed neutrality, with Prussia, Britain and France as observers to guarantee compliance.

Meanwhile, the loss of all its European possessions -- including Constantinople -- prompts the Ottomans to reform their Empire, bringing in countless Western advisors, and essentially "pulling a Meiji". The various ethnic groups etc. get guaranteed liberties defined in a charter of union, and the "United Ottoman States" are born. When ethnic tensions later flare up in the Habsburg monarchy, the Habsburgs actually use the UOS as an example, and form the multi-ethnic United States of Austria. Somewhat later, around the turn of the century, Britain and France begin to federalise their empires.

Meanwhile, domestic reactionary backlash is avoided most everywhere, since a policy of gradual reforms becomes the norm. Socialism never even takes off as anything more than a fringe movement, and improvement of workers' conditions etc. is managed through a succession of incremental reforms (none of which encounter meaningful pushback). Revolutionary sentiments remain largely absent altogether, and a mindset of progress and prosperity defines the culture of all "modern" nations.

Latin America, never thrown this way and that in the chaos of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, stay with Spain and Portugal a bit longer, and gain independence in a largely orderly way. Their politics are more stable as a result, and treaties of alliance with the USA and other liberal powers are soon drawn up. Spain and Portugal, meanwhile, enter a period of slow decline. Eventually, popular discontent ends the absolute monarchies, and the new, liberal regimes join the Atlantic Alliance.

By the 1920s, this alliance is formalised by a binding treaty, and includes such conditions as arbitrage amongst the members, lasting peace and amity among the members, free trade, and a dedication to a charter of universal rights. Members include: the British Federal Empire, the French Federal Empire, the United States of America, most of Europe (including the German Confederation, the Italian Confederation, the United States of Austria, the Scandinavian states, the Dutch Republic, spain, Portugal, the Balkan states and Greece), as well as all of Latin America and the United Ottoman States.

By the mid-20th century, the federal empires of Britain and France devolve greatly, with a lot of African countries and -- most noticeably -- India spinning off, but typically joining the Alliance as new members. Colonialism is eventually ended in a mostly responsible transition, which tries to ensure that all formerly colonised peoples get a chance to form their own nation-states on principles of their own sovereignty. At this same time, Russia -- an observer earlier -- joins the Alliance after holding referenda in Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics and Finland over independence. (The vote was universally 'yes', but since those others are also set to join the Alliance, there will soon be free trade again anyway.)

By 1980, the Alliance has developed into a military partnership as well, with most nations mandating tasks of any peacekeeping missions off to an international Alliance command. There have been no major wars between any members, and small skirmishes -- mostly involving former colonies -- have been dealt with astutely, for the most part. The Alliance, its capital in Zürich these days, is considering the membership applications of China, Japan, Korea and Persia. Already before any such admissions take place -- which they no doubt will -- the Alliance is the undisputed hegemon of the world. Many are tentatively beginning to talk about federalising the Alliance further. As a first step, an Alliance fund has been set up to help infrastructural development in the least developed member states and/or their regions, to get all the Alliance on a common level of development. It is the general stance that a universal currency cannot be introduced until that equalisation has been carried out. (To push for monetary union when members aren't equally developed, after all, would be insane.)

The world is largely at peace under the Pax Atlantica. In the distance, the United States of Humanity await: the promise of a global union, a planetary federation, that will one day serve (as many alreadty hope and dream) to carry our descendants into the stars. Does the Alliance banner not already stand proudly on the surface of the Moon? The future is bright.
 
As always when looking in this general "direction", the answer is simple: curb revolutionary radicalism, so that moderate Enlightenment remains utterly dominant. This will then avoid mass slaughter by frenzied radicals, while a lot of aristocrats and upper middle class types stay wholly in favour of Enlightenment reforms. Free trade becomes the norm in France (which becomes a consitutional monarchy after the fical situation becomes too critical to let things stand as they have until then), and an early Anglo-French detente commences. No Anglo-French wars involving republics or Bonapartes here!

I'm sceptical of the idea that a gradually reforming France under the Ancien Regime would result in a lack of Anglo-French wars, much less near unification between the two countries. By my count, the British went to war with the French for times in the century before the Revolution.
 
Is it really likely the British remain a liberal democratic power while holding on to India?

Not from the start but it would gradually evolve if the Indian people (or at least elites) can be convinced of the benefits of remaining in the Federation.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I'm sceptical of the idea that a gradually reforming France under the Ancien Regime would result in a lack of Anglo-French wars, much less near unification between the two countries. By my count, the British went to war with the French for times in the century before the Revolution.

Very quick response, as it's unfortunately a busy day on my end: Keep in mind that Britain also fought repeated wars with Spain and the Netherlands during that period. Afterwards, not so much. And... not with France, either, after Napoleon was defeated. What changed? Geopolitical realities changed. All those countries stopped being threats, and started being (on the whole) worth more as friends-- even if ditant friends, sometimes.

I think a France that moves towards constitutional monarchy would be encourgaged in this by Britain (it was the british view that France was so dangerous because it was everything Britain had been before its own Glorious Revolution, and the dominant Whig belief really was that if France also underwent something like that, it would become more like Britain, and perhaps a natural ally).

Important in this context is also the matter of free trade. France was mercantillist, Britain was becoming the leading advocate for free trade. The other nations that I mentioned were, during and after the Napoleinic Wars, moved firmly into the British camp, and were thereafter mostly set to follow British economic policy on a global scale. If France moves with Britain towards free trade, it may well become an undeniable fact that they are infinitely more valuable to each other intact and as allies than they could ever be as enemies. I'm not sating that's a sure thing, but I think it's a realistic outcome, and one I ran with for my scenario.

Alas, I can't go into it any further at present; have to run. :)
 
If the challenge is for a liberal democratic hegemon more powerful than the US the only real option is a British Imperial Federation including most of North America and Oceania that acts the node point for a trading and military alliance that dominates the rest of the Americas and ideally India while avoiding the creation of a competitor like the OTL USSR
 
Is it really likely the British remain a liberal democratic power while holding on to India?
Lets be honest, even without India Imperial Federation with Thirteen Colonies would be an absolute hyper power. For that matter keeping America would likely butterfly the Raj as Britain only started seriously pursuing territorial as well as economic dominance over India after their loss of America.
 
You think it's impossible to get a more powerful liberal democratic polity than OTL USA?

Outside of strengthening OTL US by grabbing all the other European colonies in the Americas and bits of northern Mexico (Sonora/Chihuahua/etc.), it seems pretty impossible. Unless pan-Americanism (with a focus on the liberal democratic values promoted by the US Constitution) becomes widespread in not only Spanish America, but also Brazil and the United States, which would be pretty hard since there's such obvious cultural, economic, etc. divisions between those areas that any state encompassing that region might not be so liberal democratic.
 
Britain only started seriously pursuing territorial as well as economic dominance over India after their loss of America.

That's not true. Indian domination was largely driven by people on the ground, with London later signing off on it. And that started well before 1776. The British gaining Bengal, the richest part of India, happened 20 years earlier.

But I think you're right that a unapologetic pro-democracy British Empire requires India to be lost.
 
If the challenge is for a liberal democratic hegemon more powerful than the US the only real option is a British Imperial Federation including most of North America and Oceania that acts the node point for a trading and military alliance that dominates the rest of the Americas and ideally India while avoiding the creation of a competitor like the OTL USSR

I wonder if it's possible for such a federation suck in smaller European states: Hannover, Holland, a dismantled Prussia, Portugal, Scandinavian Kingdoms.
 
Top