Does the advent of globalization require a new set of approaches - Essay Example

The advent of globalization and the shift in power structure has prescribed the exigency to reexamine existing political theories and political philosophy that govern state relations. Moreover, there is also a requisite to reevaluate the political framework effected on the domestic affairs of the state as the current gauge utilized for political analysis, according to leading political experts, fail to factor the fundamental issues that govern a country’s relationship with its population (Migdal 1997:211). These issues are said to be the consequences of the ‘global economic and information systems’ and the challenges resulting from powerful ‘ethnic and tribal forces’ (Migdal 1997:211). However, there are other political scientists who contend otherwise. Hirst and Thompson (1999), for instance, are skeptical of the ‘extent’ of globalisation as ‘capital mobility’ does not generate a robust ‘shift of investment’ and labor requirement from the economically advanced countries to the developing territories of the globe (Hirst and Thompson 1999:2-3). Similarly, Hay, partly sceptical of globalisation, put forward somewhat similar contentions as according to him, it would be erroneous to assert that the consequences of globalisation depict uniformity in every regions of the world. (Hay, 2002: 252-3). Thus, in order to understand the implications of globalization on the study of politics, there is a need to examine its effects on different areas of political, economical, social and cultural life so as to further evaluate if new set of approaches in political analysis across boundaries or in the domestic realms is necessary. As the effects of globalisation in the previous and the current decades cannot be discounted, studies in the different areas of society stress the fact that the impact of globalisation, from the biggest to the smallest state is apparently considerable. Although many assume that globalisation is a purely economical reality, the fields of economics and politics are closely intertwined that the study of the former cannot be done without analysing the latter and vice versa. Thus, in order to examine the impact of globalisation in the area of political analysis, it is significant to consider the context of globalisation on transnational, international and domestic politics ((Mittelman 1994, 427-441). This impact, of course, varies from one state to another as political, economical, socio-cultural and technological aspect of each state all across the globe vary considerably. Moreover, even economically advanced countries like the United States is not impervious to the effect of international and transnational occurrences such as terrorism and economic events. Other countries, considered vulnerable and less formidable in terms of economy or stability, apparently yield more to the impact of external forces as compared to the economically robust countries. But however significant or trivial the effects are, it is considerable to note that almost every country in the world is affected by globalisation in the present century. One of the actors that contribute to the transnational, international and domestic setting in politics and economics is technology, more specifically recent advancements in communications technology. The progress in this field, in turn, hastened the effects of globalisation in the last half of the century as well as the in the present decade. The progress that human beings have made in the field of information and communications technology brought about changes not just in our daily business affairs but also in the affairs of the state, in the world economy and in international and domestic politics. The advent of the World Wide Web and the Internet technology, which transformed the way we acquire information, is a significant aspect of globalisation as it accelerated the attainment of our goal to become 'global citizens' and internationalised persons. Sceptics like Hirst and Thompson, for instance, asserted that during the last half of the 20th century, globalisation remained a state of mind, as it did not cause the reversion of the labor market and capital from the advanced state to the developing world (Hirst and Thompson 1999:2-3). This observation could be deemed deficient, as not only is the labor market from the economically developed countries switching to the developing ones, we also detect an increase of mobility in investment and capital moving across one state to another. This is apparent in the European and American owned IT industries booming in many areas of Asia. In the last half of this decade, we have likewise observed the flourishing of outsourcing companies, which relocated to developing countries. The same can be said of multinational companies, which found it economically viable to relocate, in what we sometimes observe as just ’virtual’ multimedia relocation, to territories in which the labor market is cheaper. The impact of these relocations on domestic politics is significant as many multinationals seek for protection of the state where they used to belong or based in. Thus, this results to further political and economical constraints on the state's domestic environment, which is too formidable to overpower. This economic dimension of globalisation is one of the most important consequential aspect which resulted from economic liberalisation and 'changing attitudes' towards economic development (Schulz et al., 2001: 3). Since this economical aspect of globalisation is closely linked to politics, it is also important to consider the political dimensions of globalisation. Political globalisation has been referred to by Mittelmann as the 'emerging worldwide preference for democracy’ (1994: 429). After the collapse of most authoritarian and communist regimes in the last half of the previous century, majority of countries all over the world, especially developing ones has switched to democracy and democratic forms of governments. These transformations were not just brought about by the internal or domestic forces, but also, in most instances, external or international forces in order to effect the aforesaid transformations. The influences of the United Nations, for instance, and its various offices have significant and profound apparent consequences. This is not to say that the United Nations is not stimulated by other forces to effect this change but obviously, the organisation is also spurred by the more powerful countries and actors. The aforementioned organisation likewise has the preference for democratisation and this trend is being pursued by the organisation up to the current time. It is therefore reasonable to assert that only a few countries in the world are impervious to democratisation. This prevailing concept in politics is also reflected in the field of international relations in which the analysts reflected and hailed the principles of Western governments and international organisations' commitment to encourage democracy in areas of the globe where democratisation is being effected. Analysts also were fascinated by the actions of these actors to develop strategies to economically and politically condition countries for the purpose of democratisation (Gillespie and Youngs, 2002, and Lowenthal, 2001). The effects of these 'democratisation' processes were not predicted nor foreseen by the experts in the field of foreign policy and political analysis. The proliferation of culture has likewise encompassed and penetrated households and families all in every corners of the globe. In the past, many experts contend that Americanisation affected households and individuals all over the world. This was said to be stimulated by consumer goods and American culture and would cause Americanisation of the planet's whole population. However, the trend in the present decade is more of 'internetization' where consumers buy or consume what is 'new and trendy' over the Internet on in the World Wide Web. The effects of Americanisation is still profound and cannot be discounted, but in some ways the world's internet culture has transformed media technology to include world contemporary culture or in some instances, or in some instances, caused the reversion of individuals to one's own ethnic culture. Evident of this is the marked nationalism of many individuals all over the world who, in some aspects, showed rebellion against Americanisation. The Internet is likewise a testament to this as up till now, there is no singular language utilized by its users. Decades ago, experts predicted that the Internet will proliferate the English language in every known territory of the world and will result to a nonlinguistic society. This did not happen and it seems that it will not happen in the future. On the other hand, media and multimedia technology, including the internet, have strengthened nationalism and ethnic awareness as these are spread all over the globe in just a flick of the fingers. The globalising phenomenon therefore is not really a single universal cultural influence but knowledge of diverse ethnicities transmitted across cultures. Hence, this knowledge of behavior and actions of other people in other areas of the world cause further conflict as many who hold this knowledge tries to imitate countries which and individuals who strive for greater authority and widespread influence. This brings us to the anti-American, anti-capitalistic or anti-democratic sentiments of the apparent in the behaviour of the Islamic population and beliefs which also transformed world order as a consequence of terrorist attacks in almost every continent all over the world. These attacks could not be blamed to Islam as whole of course, but to Islamic fundamentalists who are resistant to American, contemporary and external influences (Chomsky 2006:1). This transformation brought about liberal ideals in the field of politics and political analysis as in the past, analysts greatly utilized democratic components to analyse a country's political environment. As a result, the political worldview became more aware of the existing political diversity and why diversity must be embraced rather than analysed or criticised according to the Euro-centric definitions of what a 'proper' governance should be (Chomsky 2005: 2)). The resulting world order brought about by terrorism is compelling and at the same time worthy of considerable attention by political analysts and philosophers alike. For a time, the world may seemed to have been divided into two as the United States of America transformed the accepted behavior in international relations and politics. Whether further transformations are on their way, a new set of concept and approach employed by political analysts must be put forward. Nevertheless, many scholars asserted that the impact and the extent of globalisation are not as far reaching as we expected it to be since domestic occurrences continue to control transnational businesses (Hirst and Thompson 1996: 4-5). Data also illustrates that trade, investment and pecuniary flows stay concentrated economically advanced countries in Europe and North America. However, the conclusion that Hirst and Thompson (1996) gleaned from this observation is that, ‘economic powers’ have the ability, ‘especially if they coordinate policy, to exert powerful governance pressure over financial markets’ (Hirst and Thompson 1996: 2-3). This only implies that in the areas of macro-economic and financial decision –making, less economically and politically powerful states lose their autonomy. The World Trade Organisation agreement, for instance, and the provisions stipulated under the treaty, limit autonomy by imposing its decisions as it strives to reduce state intervention in private businesses. Thus, the policies of the most powerful states, backed by international organizations and international treaties, have more prevailing effects. Thus, Migdal (1997) states that because of such forces, there is a need to consider the link between the population and the state and include them into the evaluation (211). Thus, it can be observed that there are constraints in the current employment of comparative political analysis system. Most political comparativists fundamentally focus on the whole – specifically the government – rather than the parts which make up effective governance (Hague and Harrop, 2001: 5). Although analysts include domestic party politics in their discussions, political scientists normally fail to notice other major political influences: the local media, religious institutions, local businesses and other organizations which play crucial parts in the political environment of the state (Smith 2004: 4-5). In the recent years, though, attempts have been made to narrow the divide between comparative politics and international relations as the role of external actors on domestic politics - which in turn affects its local constructions, create constraints on the government and the political economy of the state as a whole (Chalmer’s 1993: 70). Chalmers refers to this process as the ‘internationalisation of domestic politics. He argues that various international factors impinge constrictions on local politics. According to him, these ‘actors’ have crucial presence in the local political and economic environments in various states of Latin America brought about by democratization and globalisation (Chalmers 1993:71). These influences remain embedded in a state’s local politics over time and are linked to the ‘international sources of power’ (Chalmers 1993: 71). Hence, there seems to be an urgent need to understand widely the consequences of these external actors when, in some instances, they ‘intertwine’ closely with the domestic occurrences. This understanding is difficult to achieve as we need to deeply consider structural features of domestic politics such as factors that affect political economy, the availability of oil and gas reserves in the Middle East, cultural aspects such as religion, as for instance Islam. The aforementioned features, Gillespie argues, can be utilized to shape political results and decision making of the state (Gillespie and Youngs, 2002: 1). Thus, the current principles which political analysis base its principles upon suffers deficiency as when its system is utilized to understand and evaluate external factors which affect the local political climate. Political analysis must expand its concerns in order for it to become a more authoritative and objective in its views and considerations. This area of study in politics must take into full consideration the consequences of external factors, as in the past, it ignored the link among transnational actors, domestic politics, economic features and international politics (Smith 2000:4-5). The traditional method employed by political analysts is just to evaluate politics based on their observations of the state and the occurrences brought about by domestic events. Analysts usually judge a state or a country on its strength as a democracy or its potency as a capital economy. While governance and the government structure is taken into consideration, external factors already mentioned are readily ignored and are not carefully taken into account. An example of this is the fair and just elections that most analysts expect to see in newly democratized countries. Since this activity is a manifest of a democratic institution, many political analysts tend to believe that external actors do not influence the results of these elections. In contrast, we can cite various countries whose election results are to questionable and objectionable that it was only a result of, let us say, local voters. Hay (2002), for instance, observes that ‘dynamic relationships between transnational, international and domestic processes and practices’ in European countries occur (Hay 2002:23) because it is easily observed that political processes and governance in countries which belong to the European Union encompasses and considers various ‘inputs’ from external actors, business organizations – sometimes including foreign Chamber of Commerce. This only implies that the analytical focus of conventional comparative politics should transform to embrace both international and transnational factors. Governance, government structure and processes of the ‘autonomous’ national governments endow only a part of the rationalizations for political and economic consequences. During the last two decades of the previous century, the influences of external factors on the process of democratization in Eastern Europe, some parts of Asia and Africa were crucial since many countries belonging to the more economically developed states greatly involved themselves and effected pressure for the democratization of communist states (Haynes 2001:12). In the present century, we have observed additional external factors, which create constraints on the decisions of every state. Factors, mostly external as aforementioned, are involved in the political environment of the state and political analysts and scholars should consider and evaluate these factors properly so as to foresee problems that may arise with regards state relations brought about by the constrictions of external factors. Near the turn of the century, we have glimpsed at the destructive consequences of these transnational and international actors being pitted against domestic politics and economics. These devastations transformed politics and caught political analysts off guard as most of them did not foresee the outcome of the utilization of orthodox political analysis on ‘rogue’, failed and terrorists states – terms reminiscent of the Bush rhetoric. Clearly, the world has transformed much after the 9/11 attacks on the United States soil but most importantly it caused a reevaluation of the principles most political analysts held dearly. The idea of democratization of the all the world’s states, consequently resulted to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing forward the leading power’s pursuance of ‘aggressive foreign policy’ (Chomsky 2006:2) thereby, transforming state relations, trade relations, monetary policies, economic policies, laws and even popular culture. Catastrophe has indeed fallen in almost every area of the globe as the effects of terrorism and its consequences spare neither the state nor the individuals. Ordinary citizens all over the world have felt the impact of the global war against terror and thus, the need for a new approach to politics, international and domestic, should be presented. Chomsky concludes that the “government of the world’s leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes’ (Chomsky 2006:2). Hence, the utilization of political analysis in the recent times is urgently required. In addition, there is a prevailing belief among political scholars that democratization, one prevalent feature of globalisation, has failed in its goals to bring peace to the world and instead, became the main cause of conflict and destruction in the present century. Hence, it is considerable to note that the outcome of democratization policy of powerful countries like the US was not evaluated or foreseen when the traditional approach to political analysis was utilized. Some analysts contend that a super power like the United States of America supports democratization if a state follows the dictates of the US, which bases its support on its economic interests (Chomsky 2006: 3). A significant example of this, according to Noam Chomsky, the world’s most important living philosopher this century, is the January 2006 elections held in the Palestine. The US and its powerful allies closely observed the elections and deemed the activity ‘free and fair’ - except that the Palestinian ‘voted the wrong way’ and thus they were imposed harsh punishments by the US and Israel backed by their European allies. Severe penalties have been imposed such as economic sanctions – withholding of tax and custom duties – and even severed the supply of water in the Gaza region, a territory severely lacking in water (Chomsky 2006:2). The recent transformation of global politics occurring as a result of globalisation, democratisation and dominance of a few superpowers in international politics and economics, urgently requires new approaches which could effectively be employed on the areas of comparative politics, political analysis, economic analysis, international and foreign relations and diplomacy. As already noted, the system utilized by comparative political analysts, scholars, political scientists and philosophers did not embrace external factors that affect domestic politics. The forces, which apply relentless pressures on local political affairs in the majority of the states all over the globe, are too vigorous and extremely perceptible to be ignored. Added to that are new sets of strains that verge the political directions, in whichever ways superpowers want it to shift, of almost every country in the world. The advent of these new constraints brought about by globalisation and the transformation of global politics, such as the dictates of the powerful countries, capitalism, the power of Credit Rating Agencies to affect change in politics and economics, new sets of laws and foreign policy principles that conform to the US war against terror, technology and advancement in communications technology, calls urgently for new and novel approach to political analysis and the study of politics. If these new approach and principles are not generated during a time that they are urgently needed, the principles held crucial by political analysts will be deemed dead and obsolete. WORKS CITED Bretherton, C. (1996), ‘Introduction’ in C. Bretherton and G. Poynton (eds), Global Politics. An Introduction, Oxford, Blackwell. Chalmers, D. (1993), ‘Internationalized Domestic Politics in Latin America. The Institutional Role of Internationally Based Actors’. Unpublished paper. Department of Political Science, Columbia University. Chomsky, N. (2006, April 5). Superpower and Failed States. Khaleej Times, 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.chomsky.info/articles Chomsky, N. (2006, December 25). Iraq and US Foreign Policy. Interview Kurdistani Nwe Newspaper, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20061225.htm Chomsky, N. (2006, March 10). New World Relationships. Khaleej TImes, 2-3. Retrieved from http://www.chomsky.info/articles Gillespie, R. and R. Youngs (2002), ‘Themes in European Democracy Promotion’, The European Union and Democracy Promotion: The Case of North Africa, Special issue of Democratization, 9, 1. Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (2001), Comparative Government and Politics. An Introduction, 5th ed., Basingstoke, Palgrave. Hay, C. (1999) The Political Economy of New Labour. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ––––––. (2001) ‘The Invocation of External Economic Constraint: A Genealogy of the Concept of Globalisation in the Political Economy of the British Labour Party. 1973-2000’, The European Legacy, 6 (2), 233-49. ––––––. (2002) Political Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Hay, C., Watson, M. and Wincott, D. (1999) Globalisation, European Integration and the Persistence of European Social Models. ESRC One Europe or Several Research Programme, Working Paper 3/99. Haynes, J. (2001), Politics in the Developing World. A Concise Introduction, Oxford, Blackwell. Hirst,P. and Thompson, G. (1999) Globalisation in Question. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Lowenthal, A. (2001), ‘Latin America at the Century’s Turn’ in L. Diamond and M. F. Plattner (eds), The Global Divergence of Democracies, Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press and the National Endowment for Democracy. Migdal, J. (1997), ‘Studying the State’ in M. Irving Lichbach and A. S. Zuckerman (eds), Comparative Politics. Rationality, Culture and Structure, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Mittelman, J. (1994), ‘The Globalisation Challenge: Surviving at the Margins’, Third World Quarterly, 15:3, 427-441. Saurin, J. (1995), ‘The End of International Relations?’ in J. Macmillan and A. Linklater (eds), Boundaries in Question. New Directions in International Relations, London, Pinter. Schulz, M., F. Söderbaum and J. Öjendal (eds) (2001), Regionalisation in a Globalising World. A Comparative Perspective on Forms, Actors and Processes, London, Zed Books. Smith, H. (2000), ‘Why Is There No International Democratic Theory?’ in H. Smith (ed.), Democracy and International Relations, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Read More