Political theory expresses the governing ideas adopted by its founders, providing the conceptual foundations upon which states are built and power is exercised in their relationship with the people they govern and with other states. It studies political phenomena through its own terminology, causes, beliefs, assumptions, and principles that contribute to political development.
Throughout modern history, the world has witnessed the evolution of political thought through various theories such as liberalism, fascism, and communism. After the United States emerged as the sole leader of the global order, liberal theory became dominant and turned into the main standard for measuring international and domestic political relations. This dominance strengthened concepts such as individualism, freedom, and human rights, which became the common language of international discourse.
However, there has never been complete global consensus around liberalism. Several Western thinkers attempted to critique it and propose alternatives. Among these recent proposals is the Fourth Political Theory. Who founded it, and what are its intellectual foundations?
Lexical Definition of the Term “Fourth Political Theory”
Understanding the term requires breaking it into its components:
Theory (according to Western philosophical dictionaries) refers to a system of interconnected propositions that explain scientific or philosophical facts.
Political Theory (as defined in Western political science references such as the Oxford Handbook of Political Theory) is a central branch of political science that studies political systems, ideas, and international relations. The word “theory” derives from the Greek theoria, meaning “contemplation” or “vision,” referring to intellectual reflection rather than direct practice.
The term “Fourth” is an ordinal number meaning what comes after the third and before the fifth.
To truly understand the Fourth Political Theory, one must return to its founder and to Western researchers who analyzed and interpreted it.
Concept of the Fourth Political Theory
The Fourth Political Theory is most closely associated with Alexander Dugin, who described it as:
“An alternative to post-liberalism, but not as another classical ideology. It is a non-material idea that opposes materialism and challenges existing reality.”
Dugin considered it a fourth alternative to:
- Liberalism (the First Political Theory)
- Communism (the Second Political Theory)
- Fascism (the Third Political Theory)
The theory positions itself as a war against postmodernity, post-industrial society, globalization, and the technological–logistical foundations of liberal modernity.
Western analyst John B. Judis (US) described Dugin’s project as an attempt to rebuild political meaning through a metaphysical critique of liberal modernity, arguing that liberal democracy has eroded tradition, identity, and collective purpose.
Similarly, Roger Griffin (UK) observed that the Fourth Political Theory represents a form of “post-liberal radical traditionalism” seeking to revive civilizational identities against Western universalism.
Origin of the Name “Fourth”
According to Dugin’s own framework, the twentieth century was dominated by three grand political ideologies:
- Liberalism (right and left variants)
- Communism (including Marxism, socialism, and social democracy)
- Fascism (including National Socialism and “third way” authoritarian corporatist systems such as Francoism in Spain and Salazarism in Portugal)
He regarded liberalism as the first and oldest theory, centered on the individual.
Communism was the second theory, centered on class struggle.
Fascism was the third theory, centered on the state.
After the defeat of fascism and the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism became globally dominant. However, Dugin argued—echoing debates in Western academia about the “end of history” associated with Francis Fukuyama (US)—that liberalism transformed into post-politics, where global markets replaced real political life and national identities dissolved into globalization.
From this point, Dugin argued that the Fourth Political Theory became necessary, because the three previous ideologies could no longer explain or respond to contemporary global challenges.
Core Principles of the Fourth Political Theory
Western political commentators in the US and Europe have summarized the main ideas of this theory as follows:
1. Decolonization of Thought
The theory rejects Western ideological domination. Scholars such as John Gray (UK) have similarly argued that liberal universalism functions as a form of cultural imperialism. The Fourth Political Theory insists that non-Western civilizations must free themselves intellectually from Western models.
2. Rejection of Liberalism and Capitalism
Dugin—and Western critics like Patrick J. Deneen (US)—argue that liberalism has hollowed out moral communities and reduced human beings to economic units. The Fourth Political Theory treats liberalism not as neutral, but as an ideology of domination.
3. Western Values Are Not Universal
Thinkers such as Samuel Huntington (US) and Alain de Benoist (EU) similarly argued that civilizations possess distinct moral and cultural foundations. The theory rejects the liberal claim that Western human rights models are universally binding.
4. Defense of Civilizational Authenticity
While Dugin emphasizes Russian civilization, Western scholars like Arnold Toynbee (UK) and Oswald Spengler (EU) earlier advanced the idea that civilizations follow unique historical paths and cannot be reduced to a single Western model of development.
5. Multipolar World Order
The Fourth Political Theory rejects American-led unipolarity. This concept parallels Western “realist” thought found in writers such as Henry Kissinger (US) and John J. Mearsheimer (US), who advocate multipolar balances of power rather than liberal universalism.
The Fourth Political Theory and Postmodernity
Dugin views the theory as a battle within the postmodern era, challenging global liberalism in a world where traditional structures have collapsed.
Western philosopher Zygmunt Bauman (EU) similarly described postmodernity as a stage of “liquid modernity,” where identities and traditions dissolve. The Fourth Political Theory attempts to reverse this trend by restoring tradition, theology, hierarchy, and civilizational meaning.
Dugin even frames globalization in theological terms, while Western theorists like Carl Schmitt (EU) emphasized that political conflicts often carry theological and existential dimensions.
Russia’s Role in the Fourth Political Theory
Dugin believed Russia should follow a civilizational path distinct from the West, preserving tradition, religion, and collective identity.
Western geopolitics scholars such as George F. Kennan (US) and Halford Mackinder (UK) emphasized Russia’s unique position as a land-based Eurasian power with strategic depth distinct from maritime Western powers.
The theory is closely linked to the concept of Neo-Eurasianism, which envisions Russia as the core of a Eurasian civilizational bloc.
Many Western analysts, including Mark Galeotti (UK) and Timothy Snyder (US), have argued that Dugin’s ideas influenced elements of Russian strategic thinking, particularly in Ukraine and Syria, though the degree of direct influence remains debated.
Western Criticism of the Fourth Political Theory
Western intellectuals have strongly criticized both Dugin and his theory.
Charles Upton (US) accused Dugin of presenting liberalism as absolute evil and implicitly legitimizing global war.
Political economist Richard Sakwa (UK) argued that the Fourth Political Theory lacks clear institutional models and risks legitimizing authoritarian rule under the banner of tradition.
Other European scholars have described the theory as ideologically contradictory, defining itself mainly through opposition to the West rather than constructive political programs.
Conclusion
Human political thought continues to evolve through constant critique and renewal. The Fourth Political Theory represents a modern attempt to challenge liberal global dominance and propose an alternative civilizational model.
To some Western observers, it is a serious philosophical revolt against modernity; to others, it is an ideological project that risks authoritarianism and conflict. Regardless of evaluation, it remains one of the most debated political frameworks in contemporary geopolitical thought.
