Globalization and the End of the Nation-State - Coursework Example

Globalization Introduction Klein (2007) and Moseley (2007) have both addressed a series of pertinent issues regarding the global political and economic situation in various contexts. The former, in her book, Democracy born in Chains, discusses the plight or South Africa, which like many former colonies gained political freedom but appeared to lose its economic one. On the other hand, Mosley is concerned with the underlying connection between globalization and imperialism and he tries to understand the stakes at hand and the challenges that come about because of the concepts often-underestimated complexity. This paper will examine both texts in their contents and attempt to analyze the ideas of the writers by agreeing or disagreeing where necessary. Synopsis Klein attempts to put into context the conflict that faced leadership and citizenry in the period of transition from a white to black majority government. One of the main challenges the founding father of the nation, Nelson Mandela faced was the perception by his followers that it was now the turn for the black to run the country, however, they wanted. This included taking over and redistributing the ill begotten wealth of their former oppressors (Klein, 2007). The writer describes Mandela’s decisive moment when he wrote a note that made it clear that for him and the ANC, redistribution of national resources would be a key priority. This would be done through the nationalization of various institutions. However, contrary to what some had imagined, he insisted that it was necessary that the trade be controlled and some areas of the economy to be in the hands of the state. Klein makes it clear in her interpretation of the freedom charter that the people would not be considered free because they have governance, but when they too can share in the nation’s wealth. However, many observers expected that part of the takeover would involve a rejection of the prevailing free market orthodoxy. These were the corporates that were widely viewed as complacent to apartheid since they profited from it would also be punished. However, the writer asserts that Mandela and ANC instead adopted policies that gradually resulted in an incredible rise in inequality and crime, making it one of the unequal nations in the world. ANC is portrayed as having been hoodwinked by the former colonizers whom, failing to secure power ended up Balkanizing the economy through subtle and “objective” negotiation. Unlike the neighboring Mozambique, where the whites after losing to the freedom fighters laid waste property and took with them as much as they could. The supremacists kept a hold on the economy so they could protect their wealth, even if they were not in power. Ultimately, Klein is of the opinion that the economic inequality is largely to be blamed on ANC politicians who were so eager to secure power in parliament that they were blind to the more insidious economic battle that the whites won. The fact that there is still so much inequality is evidence that the victory is even today being enjoyed, leaving the power to the blacks and money with the whites. In the book Globalization theory, Mosley addresses the issue of globalization and its effects on world economies, owing to the interconnectedness between various nations. The book comments on the worrying trend of increasing inequalities between countries, which are supposed to build each other through trade. Despite the victory of liberalism, numerous questions need answers pertaining to how nations react and interact in the context of various economic systems. Owing to its scope, the globalization of national economies influences not only financial but also security and social factors. Liberalization of trade has been one of the stepping-stones for realizing a global economy but, despite this, it has significantly contributed to the rising inequality and exploitation among nations. In fact, some analysts have described the economics of globalization to be only a step away from imperialism. The book addresses various controversies about globalization keeping in mind that it has been both divisive and connective in the international sociopolitical and economic systems (Mosley, 2007). The impact of globalization on the various theoretical fields and disciplines is also examined covering subjects such as epistemologies and ontologies. It provides a profound challenge both theoretically and practically since, it is almost impossible to determine exactly how much globalization affects individual and collective economies. The book also talks about the possibility of governance on a global platform, especially with the US’s emphasis on unilateralism and social justice. Discussion Democracy born in Chains is without doubt a well-researched and carefully written book; however, it makes some observations and accusations, which beg to be considered very critically. She rightly portrays Mandela as the leader of the South African people and ANC as the top tool through which the nation fought for and eventually won their independence. However, she does not let the novelty of the retrospective victories or even international acclaim both the leaders and party have gained distracts her from criticizing their actions. She, however, applauds the fact that Mandela was well aware of his duty to see to the redistribution of wealth, a factor without which the people of South Africa could never be free. While might seem pretty obvious and straightforward, it is not always the case and when colonial masters depart, wealth does not automatically revert to the “people”. In fact, in her description of the initial steps of the freedom charter, which was written on scraps of paper, Klein appears to look upon some of the demands with an understandable amount of condescension since they were not all practical. Demanding that all without land, for example, to be given is something out of Utopia, an ideal not unlike the ones the animal characters in George Orwell’s Animal farm enjoyed for a few months before the true “human” nature of their leaders emerged with gradual but decisive inequalities. The book also discusses the misguided notion some of the Africans had about becoming the new “whites”. In a manner of speaking, to be tyrants and take away from those who had mistreated and exploited them for decades. In his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educationalist comments on the tendency of oppressed people to confuse freedom with being oppressors (2000). It is entirely possible that this is the same situation the text describes, the people of South Africa had been oppressed for so long that they no longer membered how to be free but only how to be not oppressed from what they saw in their oppressors. This is a compelling argument and although it does not always apply, it is highly descriptive of the mental state of many nations immediately after they have attained freedom. The text casts several barbs at the ANC leadership for allowing themselves to be misled by the whites in the economic negotiations. Admittedly, in almost all negotiations with De Clerk, Mandela won easily since he had the compact majority behind him (Klein, 2007). However, as the book rightly puts it, while the whites may have been willing, or rather had no option but cede political power; nonetheless, when it came to the economy, it was a different matter altogether. The writer is indeed correct in saying that the whites Balkanized the economy, but in all fairness, as several other cases have demonstrated on the same continent, an abrupt handing over of economic power from one group to another less experienced one could be regressive in the long term. The whites had been controlling the economy and the blacks were mostly at the periphery, while, not saying that the status quo should be maintained, the truth is they former had more experience than the former and this was one transition that needed to be done slowly. Take the case of Zimbabwe where, whites were practically run from the country and the economy placed in the hands of inexperienced locals. The economy ended up nearly collapsing and although the nation was one of the wealthiest in Africa in the 50’s and 60’s, it is one of the poorest with a nearly worthless currency to boot. South Africa on the other hand, despite the complications of transitions has remained as economically robust as it was and even with the inequality, the situation is no different from many other African countries, which do not share a history with S.A. Therefore, while there was clearly a degree of imbalance in the sharing of economic power, it is only fair that one should consider the perspective of the freedom fighters. Their interest was political power because apartheid used political power to exploit and oppress Africans irrespective of their economic position. Besides, these were not really economists, but politicians; they were responding to the will of a people who wanted to live in a country where they do not have to endure the indignity of discrimination. Therefore, while the writer had a point arguing that ANC may have been outmaneuvered, this was not necessarily their fault or even a bad thing. However, they did place the country in the hands of international organisations, which resulted in serious national debt among other challenges. In this regard, the writer was indeed right about the interests of the whites, they were willing to do just about anything to ensure their “hard earned” wealth did not get into their hands of their former subjects. In Democracy Born in Chains, there is a great deal of emphasis on the irony that was post-apartheid South Africa; in fact, one of the commentators quoted in the books says the chains were moved from the neck to the ankles of the “free” South Africa. There was political power, but the leaders were greatly constricted by a web, which made it nearly impossible for them to leverage the power they achieved to provide the promised advantages to their people. In addition, freedom came at a time when globalization was quickly becoming a major force in world politics and economics. Largely, apartheid was conquered through efforts of the global community, which gave both moral and economic support to ANC. However, this same globalization weighed in negatively to the young nation, the fact that it has signed the GTT agreement made it difficult to build houses supply water and even medication. In addition, land reforms were difficult to achieve since the privatization of property act protected the land that whites had taken from the blacks (Klein, 2007). Does this necessarily mean that ANC had failed? That depends on what one imagines their role was, despite the fact that they were driven to action by economic and political inequality, it was easier as aforementioned for them to rally the nation behind politics than the economy. What the writer does not consider is that before independence, there were still economic inequalities amongst blacks more so the educated and uneducated one. After Apartheid, although many whites still controlled the resources, even more blacks took over positions of power and their actions greatly contributed to the economic divide. The writer correctly asserts that the Global financial institutions in whose hands the economy was left made the process of transition very difficult. Today, many third world nations labor under the neocolonial burden of these bodies, which have maneuvered themselves in the country through the gaps left by colonizers. They provide aid and other assistance, which, however, comes with strings attached. Today, the majority of African countries can hardly run their economy without donor funding. As a result, they find that the journey towards self-reliance and true independence is far from over despite the theoretical freedom. Indeed the situation that emerged in SA after apartheid is a reflection of the global state of affairs especially from an economic perspective. Through bodied controlled by former imperial colonizers such as the UK, many countries have remained in a state of post-colonial domination done from an economic rather than political viewpoint. When the countries are almost completely dependent on the World Bank and other bodies, it is at this point that the real power is exerted. The government is told they can only get certain loans if they meet some conditions, and example of these conditions includes retrenching some staff in government departments. A more common case is when countries are forced to buy overpriced products from their former colonial masters. Free trade and the globalized economy ends up being used to exploit countries like South Africa and instead of forming strong trading blocs with their neighbors like the EU and OPEC nations; they are split and rendered weak. Klein may not have clearly mentioned these things, but it is evident that she takes cognizance of the apparent machinations by the whites to keep controlling the country by proxy. According to Klein, once the ANC realized that they had been manipulated into literally exchanging political for economic freedom, they had two options. They could have launched a second liberation or respected the status quo in the hope that with time, they would get new investors and their citizens would enjoy a trickledown effect. She seems to view this as a mistake and argues that the ANC should have known better than to sacrifice the economic autonomy of their people for the sake of political convenience. However, one cannot ignore that the apartheid government had a great deal of influence both locally and internationally and many foreign firms feared the African led governance would undermine the economy. Case in point, After Mandela’s release, the South African stock market collapsed and one of the most influential companies in the country, De Beers, relocated to Switzerland. Given the degree of impact foreign run firms had on the success of the South African business environment, it may have made sense for the white owned business to remain in their hands at least for the time being. Nevertheless, Klein is right in criticizing ANC for not doing enough to safeguard the interests of the black in the end. In their inaction, they allowed the whites to not only secure, but also consolidate their wealth setting the pace for the inequalities that would come to plague the nations long after apartheid (Klein, 2007). After reviewing both texts, it is easy to agree with the writer, globalization may be the biggest thing happening in the economic and political world but that does not necessarily mean it is all good. In the same way Neocolonialism has been evidenced in South Africa’s case, globalization can indeed be contextualized as the next step in imperialism. Consider that most African countries due to free trade agreements have failed to launch a decent manufacturing industry because of cheap imports from the West and more recently east. For example, one will almost never hear of an African mobile brand, not so much because they cannot make one, but the competition from cheap imports is too stiff. The same applies to vehicles and most agricultural machinery, which are from the west at often imposed upon prices. The US can easily tip the result of an Election in Kenya or Botswana and the UK can just as easily manipulate the currency rate of most of its former colonies by varying its grants or loans to them. Consequently, there is little doubt that imperialism is simply a new form of colonialism, in this case the colonialist stay in their country as the wealth from their “colonies” streams in, replaced with substandard goods and foreign debt to strengthen the bondage (Mosley, 2007). The writer is correct in saying that Globalization has greatly contributed to the exploitation since in addition to the neocolonial policies another emerging trend or outsourcing to countries with poor working conditions, or labor laws is raising concerns. Only recently, the US smartphone giant Apple.inc was accused of human rights abuse in its Foxconn factories in China, where it is alleged the working conditions were so bad and wages so low several of the staff committed suicide. Evidently, knowing that they cannot be allowed to exploit workers in their home countries, multinationals based in the west outsource to developed or developing nations hoping to maximize their bottom line by paying less for labor. There is a distinct correlation between the texts despite the fact that on the outside they appear to be focused on two different subjects and contexts. Ultimately, even if the post-Apartheid struggle may not appear to be intimately connected to issues of global economics, a critical mind will immediately see the common ground both occupy. In many ways, South Africa is like a crucible on which globalization theories can be tested out because of the diverse cultural background and the difficult history between the peoples. In the same way, the global village will include former colonizers and subjects trying to do business together, South Africa is a rainbow nation, where people who only a few years ago were deeply divided by racial hatred and unjust laws have to work together towards a common goal. However, it is also worth noting that even in this deceptive unity, there are simmering issues of historical injustices, inequality and many others that potentially threaten to doom the uneasy social political truce. There are those that feel even today, whites have the best parts of the land and blacks are still exploited and that the freedom label is just that, a label. In the same way the global village, consist of people that have retrospectively been at odds and some who even today continue to antagonize each other for social, political or economic reasons. Conclusion In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that both these books, despite being centered on different topics are somehow interconnected in their focus on the theme of imperialism. From a postcolonial point of view, the texts address the fundamental problem of exploitation and modern enslavement of the third world by their first world many of whom have a previous colonial relationship. Ultimately, while Klein comes off as rather critical to the ANC government, her concerns are easy to understand given that she represents the millions who hoped they would have learnt from the colonial tricks having been the last African country to gain independence. References Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Klein, N. (2007). Democracy born in chains: South Africa�s constricted freedom, in idem. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Toronto: Vintage), pp. 233-61. Mosley, L. (2007). The political economy of globalization, in D. Held and A. McGrew (eds.). Globalization Theory (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 106-112. Read More