Globalisation and Democracy - Essay Example

Globalisation Has Created an Unjust Unequal and Undemocratic World Introduction: Globalization is a broad term and is perhaps can be best comprehended as a process that is comprehensive of other processes that are increasingly binding people more closely into one global system with one fortune. These sub processes can be enhanced economic interdependence, increased cultural influence, speedy development of information technology, and original supremacy with geo-political challenges. In general terms, meaning of Globalization is purely related to the increasing connectivity of economies and ways of life across the world. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, globalization is the process by which the experience of everyday life is becoming standardized around the world." While some scholars and outsiders of globalization press upon the conjunction of models of fabrication and utilization and a resultant standardization of civilization1 (Raskin, 2002), while others press upon the fact that globalization has the potential to take many diverse forms. In broad terms of economics, globalization can be defined as is the conjunction of prices, products, wages, interest rates and profits toward developed country standards. This economical globalization depends on the function of human migration, global worldwide trade, development of capital, and amalgamation as well as incorporation of economic markets. Although the global economy has grown rapidly in this context, yet poverty persists, inequality increases, and global environmental degradation intensifies. An enduring precept of the post-Cold War era is that globalisation can be a catalyst for democratization. From one perspective, when democratic principles flounce or dribble across boundaries into controlling states, globalisation makes democratisation unavoidable. Supporters of this view point to the infectivity of independent and autonomous transitions in the world over the past quarter-century and to the ability of technology to penetrate the most closed societies. Even the most closed government of closed economies have gone online, though the broader population of these countries have no right of entry to the external world (Catharin E. Dalpino, 2001). After the World War II, process of globalization started becoming recognized with a number of large trends for the greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people. Post World War II era also witnessed the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures while having a combined effect on this international movement. Following are the catalyst factors which accelerated the process of globalisation; Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity Greater international travel and tourism along with superior rate of immigration Spread of local consumer products (e.g., food) to other countries World-wide fads, pop culture, and sporting events Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure (Internet etc) Globalisation and Democracy: The relationship between democracy and globalisation has been the focus of substantial policy makers and philosophers. Some argue that democracy and globalisation go hand in hand suggesting that unrestricted international transactions leads to increased political accountability and transparency. Politically free societies are likely to have minimal restrictions on the mobility of goods and services across national borders. Others argue that the causal relationship should be reversed: democracies are more likely to have closed markets and vice versa. Many economists presume that globalization and democracy go together (Barry Eichengreen, David Leblang, 2004). They believe in this hypothesis because free international transactions benefit society as a whole. According to them, it is the democracy that renders political leaders more accountable to the electorate. Hence, it should be conducive to a larger extent for the removal of restrictions on such transactions. These economic philosophers also believe that the exchange of goods and services is a conduit for the exchange of ideas, and a more diverse stock of ideas encourages political competition. Indonesia is one clear example of such impact by the globalisation on a more open and competitive democratic system. Contradictory to the above stated claims by economists and researchers, Mikhail Beliaev in his study on Globalisation and Democracy suggests reverse of the previous research studies. He says that there are two main arguments for supporting his theory that the economic globalization threatens democracy (Mikhail Beliaev, 2003). His first argument is that the increasing interconnectedness between nations restricts national sovereignty and democratic control over political agenda; while his second argument is that the economic globalization tends to eliminate the social correctives to the market economy. According to him, the present analysis suggests that the relationship between globalization and erosion of the basic structures of representative democracy is of different nature. Complicated policy tasks require representative institutions to find new approaches and instruments, while the linkage between the institutions and the represented social groups have been eroding due to the changing structures of society and political communication. Thus, globalization highlights structural weaknesses of contemporary democracies but does not necessarily undermine the principle of democratic governance. Hence, it will not be wrong if it is said that the globalisation eliminates the social correctives to the market economy. This loosening of the social safety net together with the on-going restructuring of the economic system increase social inequality while making the rich richer and the poor poorer. A result of these developments is the threat to the very social foundations of contemporary democracies. According to Mikhail Beliaev’s study, modern democracy seems to be in the squeeze between the external pressure and unfavourable internal shifts in the domestic social structures of various societies, while the impact of globalization on modern democracies is usually referred to as “crisis of the state”. Scharpf F.W, in his study on the ‘Impact of Globalization on the Limitations on State Capacity’, suggests that, “Globalization increases the potential mobility of financial capital, real investments, goods and services, and to a more limited extent, highly skilled labour. Consequently, mobile economic actors are better able to avoid undesirable state regulations, or to profit from ones that are more advantageous. To the extent that countries depend on these actors, or on the resources they control, they are forced into a competition for certain location’s advantage that has all the characteristics of a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, and that reduces the capacity of the territorial state to shape the conditions under which capitalist economies must operate” (Scharpf, 1998). If the examples of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc is looked closely at, then it can be found out that the mobile economic actors (large corporations) come in these countries and make their own profit while contributing to the changing of laws and regulations which best suit them. This results in loose democratic structure of the related country. According to Mikhail Beliaev’s study, globalisation has directly challenged the ability of states to govern autonomously, even in the domain of domestic policy. States are losing their control over financial flows and trans-national organization of production due to the huge world-wide electronic money transfers with growing significance of off-shore zones, increasing ability of trans-national corporations to decide upon organization of production across national borders. Democratic states art also their control over the information flows, because the rise of satellite communications, computer data transmissions, international mass-media, which cover ever larger parts of the world. The lack of the ability to control information flows has increasing importance in the ostensible information age. In the 20th century, the means of mass communication became more and more ubiquitous. Control over the centres transmitting this information became an effective tool of manipulating the public opinion. Growth of international mass-media and consequent decline in governmental ability to control information being delivered to almost every house is therefore apparently challenging for authoritarian regimes, but it also creates some risks for a democracy since the latter can hardly guarantee access of different social groups to leading mass-media. Ironically, these two tendencies may have different effects on democratic and authoritarian political regimes. Increased information flows challenge autocracies and, perhaps, were a cause of the major democratization wave in the late twentieth century. At the same time, financial flows and trans-national organization of production may jeopardize democratic governance at the national level. Because the financial autonomy and ability to modify systems of taxation according to recognized social needs has been considered as a fundamental property of a modern sovereign state, the relative release of financial flows from direct national regulation is expected to undermine the authority of nation-states. In the case of contemporary democratic regimes, these developments are likely to weaken one of their basic pillars, namely, the social safety net. Thus, globalization is expected to challenge the basic principle of democratic governance, the authority of representative institutions to establish the rules of wealth re-distribution in a country. In a seminar2 conducted by the NRSP-Institute of Rural Management on ‘Democratisting Development in South Asia- Responding to the Challenges Of Globalisation’, well re-known economist Dr Prof Rehman Sobhan presented his perspective about the impact of globalisation on the Democracy. According to his hypothesis, the South Asian poor are finding it difficult to cope with the emerging intricacies of market economy and remained non-beneficiary from the opportunities provided by the globalisation owing to the inequitable access to wealth, knowledge and unequal participation in market and unjust governance. While telling major reason of the inability, he argued that the representative institutions tend to be monopolised by the affluent and socially powerful groups who then use their electoral offices for enhancing wealth and to thereby perpetuate hold over power; and in such a discriminatory environment, the benefits of democracy remain the privilege of elite. According to Mr. Rehman, “The inequitable working of global markets and the undemocratic structuring of the global institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO indicate that the international system, in its prevailing incarnation, is not poor friendly. Dealing with inequalities of globalisation, the South Asian countries must democratise the development process so that the disempowered and resource poor people can directly benefited from the opportunities created by the market.” He concluded that the globalisation and the modern markets had bypassed the poor as active actors in markets who could use this to their advantage. As a result of the changes in the global market, the rural economy of countries like Bangladesh has undergone a transformation, with major part of rural household incomes in South Asia generated from non-farm activities. This hypothetical research study by Dr Prof Rehman Sobhan clearly implicates that the Globalisation has had its negative impact on the democracy while creating an unjust unequal and undemocratic world. Conclusion: While developed world seems to be enjoying the benefits of globalisation, it appears as if developing countries are going through a new cultural cleavage within the society: the development from rather culturally homogeneous national society to a society with two coexisting types of cultures, traditional national culture of the industrial society and global culture of economic and political elite (Mikhail Beliaev, 2003). This inconsistency can be confirmed, both on national level, between the new privileged and “less global” social groups, as well as on an international level, where the slit among the countries - which are fore-fronting globalisation - and the rest of the world speedily increases while directly resulting in creation of an unjust unequal and undemocratic world. Specially, after the end of Cold War, the awful flight of world’s deficiency and global inequality has its roots in the globalisation and its financial system. A variety of governments across the globe implemented such system, which triggered a disgustingly iniquitous global financial order under which the major split of the reimbursements of universal financial growth streams to the wealthiest states (Pogge, 2002). The difficulty, then, is not a financial one, but a political one of unequal power relations, and a lack of equal and democratic participation by all players in the game (Fiona Robinson3, 2005). World’s privileged could have improved to solve the troubles of the world if they were stern and dedicated to their hallucination of new financial order of so called ‘Global World’. In its place we have with us an unequal and alienated world where issues are better for those who are prosperous and shoddier for those who are pitiable. The slit between the underprivileged and the loaded is devastatingly escalating. Impartiality and communal honesty are darkened and poverty is spread all over the place. Notwithstanding marvellous technical and hi-tech advancement, the world today is more vulnerable and unpredictable. Economic super powers of the world have amorphously misused the word 'Globalization' to dish up their comforts. Globalization of today is stained with supremacy offbeat and submissive attitude to inflict unjust, unequal, and undemocratic world. References: The Nation, 'South Asian poor fail to cope with market economy’. Available Online: Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from http://www.irm.edu.pk/press_coverage.asp (1998) Scharpf, F.W. Globalization: The Limitations on State Capacity, in: Schweizerische Zeitschrift fuer Politikwissenschaft, 1998, vol. 4. Available Online: Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from http://www.ib.ethz.ch/spsr/debates/debat_global/art-2-1.html (2001) Catharin E. Dalpino, Does Globalization Promote Democracy? Available Online: Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from http://www.brookings.edu/press/review/fall2001/dalpino.htm (2002) Pogge, T. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Cambridge (2002) Raskin, P. The Great Transition: The Promise and the Lure of the Times Ahead. (2003) Mikhail Beliaev. Democracy and Globalization: Sources of Discontent. Available Online: Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v3.1/04_beliaev.html (2004) Barry Eichengreen, David Leblang. Democracy and Globalisation. Available Online: Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from http://www.bis.org/events/conf060619/eichengreen_etc.pdf (2005) Fiona Robinson, Care, Gender and Global Social Justice: Towards an Moral Framework for Ethical Globalization. Available Online: Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/Robinson.pdf Read More