Globalization and Democratic Government - Case Study Example

Running Head: GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT Globalization and Democratic Government [The Writer’s Name] [The Name of the Institution] Globalization and Democratic Government Introduction It has been observed by some political critics that globalisation masquerades an impending and solemn threat to democracy. Impressionistic confirmation of this threat is definitely potent: trans-national corporations (TNCs) appear ever more capable to escape the access of state directive. The activities and policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are recurrently observed as intrusive with the autonomy and sovereignty of states and advancing a global corporate programme. (Evans, 2002, 62-87) Despite this reality that globalization intimidates democracy is extensively shared, it has confirmed difficult to launch the nature and degree of the threat on definite experiential basis. Much of the substantiation is vague or debatable; several scholars decline the whole debate as sheer globaloney while others believe that globalization is little more than theatrical or theoretical cover for a neo-liberal financial outline. Yet the critics who agree to the ground that something is going on cannot agree how new, how considerable or how everlasting current developments might be. (Dahl, 1991, 154) The globalization debate comprises not so much in discernment conflicting with authenticity as in uncertain reality following frequent and occasionally opposing perceptions. (Przeworski, 1997, 121-26) This elevated amount of experiential vagueness has led some well-known intellectuals of democracy to propose that political scholars can possibly add little of exercise to the discussion on globalization and democracy. Western governments, multinationals, and international NGOs adopted positions and perspectives that claimed greater concern with the nature of political structures within developing and newly industrialized states. The actor-based approach heeds the call of a growing number of analysts for detailed research into the strategies and concerns of different actors in relation to international political trends. From the mid-1990s, theorists argued that it was necessary to correct the common impressions either that some kind of impersonal dissemination or snow-balling momentum has worked in democracy's favour, or conversely, that some apparently exogenous structural trends of globalization have necessarily worked against the vitality of national level democracy. (Evans, 2002, 62-87) Neither of these forms of analysis, it was widely asserted, accorded sufficient priority to the complex motives and actions of actors whose presence at the international level gave them a key stake in, and influence over, political trends throughout different regions of the world. (Walter, 1998, 292) Conceptual Evaluation of Democracy in Global Perspective Democracy is always named and used in the liberal discursive process. But if we refer to history, democracy of these days is not the same as democracy decades ago. Thus, it is important that democracy is understood as an evolution and not as a static concept. Similarly it is necessary to understand democracy by its principles and not by its practitioners in power. Liberal democracy can be briefly defined as a system of government in which the people rule themselves, either directly or indirectly but in either case subject to constitutional restraints on the power of the majority (Dickerson and Flanagan, 2005, 239). If we analyze democracy by the principles extracted from the definition: equality of political rights, majority rule, political participation, and political freedom, we can ask ourselves if the present formal democracy represents its own principles. Dickerson and Flanagan say that equality of political rights mean that every individual has the right to vote, run for office, and serve on a jury, speak on public issues and carry out other public functions. Furthermore, political rights are a matter of degree because they have been evolving during the last century. But it is not possible to know how much political equality is enough for democracy, because it seems to change every time and under different circumstances. An important example of how political rights can vary is the United States, because since 1787 until 1960 the franchise was extended to a majority of its citizens. (Dickerson and Flanagan, 2005, 243) Elaborated Models of Democracy In Canada the franchise was first extended by the provinces and these would include the participation on federal elections. But due to the Act of 1885 the qualifications to vote in provincial and federal elections were uniform. After 1898 Canadian citizens would be able to vote for provincial and federal elections under the same franchise controlled by the provinces. In 1920 the Dominion Elections Act gave the federal government control of qualifications of voting. The last advance in Canadian democracy was in 1993 when prisoners were allowed to vote. Another principle would be Majority Rule that is derived from the prior principle of political equality. Hence each vote counted equally will give a clear majority that must be respected and accepted. The decisions will reflect the majority's will. However there is certain plurality in Britain, Canada, and the US, because the candidate that has the majority of votes will be elected, even though this majority is less than 50% plus one. The reason for this is a budgetary constraint on elections; however this constraint may vary because of the differences between economies. In the same way a qualified majority that can be a smaller proportion than the majority. This way the Minorities Rights will be protected from majorities and there will be equilibrium between powers within the rule of law. This is a common practice, in formal democracies, for amendments to the constitution. Current Majority, in Canada, means that some specific cases need the majority of votes from representatives of two regions, so none of them would be oppressed by the other. In contrast Bicameralism is another practice that gives power to two chambers, representatives and senate, to analyse and correct legislations. Finally unanimity is a requirement that would be the last resource for minorities to promote legislation. Socio-Economic Trends: Impact on Democracy and Globalisation General agreement emerged that international economic, social and political trends should be conceived less as inexorable, spontaneous processes, and more as mediated through actors whose fundamental identity is constantly reconstituted through those same trends. The roles played by international actors should be seen as integral to the nature of domestic influences both assisting and prohibiting democratization in developing states, while themselves in turn being conditioned by such factors. (Barkawi, 1999, 403-34) Into the post-cold war period, foreign investors came more generally to seek a change only in the form, not substance of policy-making formations in developing markets. They were seen as actively supporting the installing of heavily truncated forms of democracy built on the same logic of control and stability as soft authoritarianism, but simply with a formally democratic façade. 'Low intensity' democracy would retain considerable state autonomy for economic liberalization while tempering unrest due to its ideological legitimacy and credibility with local populations. (Gills et al., 1993, 3-28) Democracy disciplined labour through elites ensuring its ideational hegemony. This preserved 'ossified political and economic structures from an authoritarian past': keeping the public quiescent, but in any meaningful sense excluded from decision-making processes. Following a period of evidently mounting tensions under authoritarianism; under a new limited democracy 'steam is let off slowly and carefully it cools the whole thing down a bit and makes its more manageable'. (Gills et al., 1993, 3-28) Such limited democracy was seen as comprising a strong executive; a weak legislature, undercutting possible opposition to economic orthodoxy; the continuation of a de facto military hold over policy choices; weak trade unions; and a lax protection of human rights, the abuse of which served the interests of domestic and international capital. (Bernstein, 1998, 87-92) In a not dissimilar vein, notable theorists from outside this critical tradition, while stressing how democracy could embed pro-market policies in a more sustainable manner than dictatorship, advocated limited group rights for civil society associations as a means of preventing society's 'encompassing interests' being undermined. (Olsen, 2000, 188-90) Crucially for international capital, such limited democracies keenly ceded their own democratic responsibility over many aspects of economic and financial policy to international institutions, protecting themselves from popular pressure. (Cox, 1994, 50) Flowing from this was the commonly held view that, whatever its professed perspectives on political change, international business were instrumental primarily as a vehicle of the very dynamics of globalization that had undermined any effective exercise of democratic rights at the national level. (Gray, 1998, 149-64) Developing World and Democracy From the critical perspective, it was the low intensity variety of democracy that started to become most prevalent, its spread reflecting the primary influence of multinational capital over Western foreign policies. The further elaboration of the democracy promotion agenda would be at the behest of multinational business, as a vehicle for further subordinating the developing world to the rule of global capital. (Chomsky, 1997, 56-60) Democracy and human rights promotion had mistakenly been construed as a political project separate from the economic realm. Instead, the economic and political needed to be studied as two dimensions of a single societal framework, and the political projects of dominant social classes investigated. (Whitehead, 1999, 84-98) Democracy promotion could not be studied as a separate political, strategic or ethical agenda: rather, “the economic realm determines the fate of the political', there being a 'necessary fit between the type of democracy being promoted and the widening gaps between poor and rich created by neoliberalism”. (Lynch, 2000, 91-102) Opponents of these sceptical views pointed to the more positive benefits of democracy, and the importance of high quality democratic process. This perspective was most prominently the result of explorations into democracy's developmental virtues. (Gunder, 1993, 45-46) Technical governance reforms needed to be underpinned by changes in 'the climate of norms and behavioural modes', especially regarding 'relative justice'. (Sorensen, 1998, 36) While elements of the democratic peace often appeared to have gained almost axiomatic status within international relations debates, increasingly forceful counter-arguments also took shape. (Sen, 1999, 278) At another level of analysis, the limits to democratic development were linked to globalization and the increasing influence of international capital. (Stopford, 1999, 67) Many authoritarian regimes spent excessively on military capacity, in the absence of checks on money being diverted from pressing domestic needs and consumption spending. (Clark, 1998, 489-98) The over centralization of economic competences prevented local levels of administration from varying services better to meet the interests of economic agents. (IADB, 1997, 153) European pressure groups, with prominent business representation, insisted that the more equal provision of education was the key to providing greater stability and generating longer-term European interest in Latin America. (Schweller, 2000, 43) Strong, independent political parties could play a vital role in articulating overall packages of policies, addressing issues of coherence between different initiatives and more effectively monitoring corruption. (Schmitz, 1999, 69-72) The absence of party programmes pitting comprehensively worked-through choices against each other often militated against coherent, overarching reform programmes. (Nordskag, 2000, 82-86) Advances and Limits to International Democratic Agency To some extent, the bottom-up gradualist approach emerged by default, in the absence of any really coordinated linking together of the different levels and dimensions of democracy promotion policies. (Whitehead, 1996, 271) Moreover, standardization also played an increasingly influential role: once democracy was in effect forced onto the agenda by the changes in Latin America and then Eastern Europe, its incorporation into other areas was in part forced by the dynamics of universalization, rather than reflecting a careful weighing up of strategic interests: pursuing a more universal policy was on balance and in an unspecific sense seen as likely to be more beneficial. While economic competition between Western governments was most commonly seen as militating against a more significant focus on democracy and human rights; in some cases the European Union and United States seemed to compete to boost their respective international profile by gaining lead role as democracy's most effective guarantor. At least in part, that is, democracy promotion was driven by competition within the West rather than deliberation over the values of democracy itself. Is Globalization Really Hurting Democracy? Over the past decade, developing countries have consistently outperformed industrialized countries in terms of export growth - an average increase of almost 10 percent a year, compared to 5 percent for industrialized countries. (Lynch, 2000, 91-102) The world is shrinking - or so it seems. Governments are quite possibly more interconnected and interrelated now than at any other time in history. This web of interdependency is primarily made possible by trade. And while some argue that free trade is mutually beneficial to all parties, critics of globalization say that, among other things, centralized trade organizations and non-governmental organizations threaten states' sovereignty. (Halliday, 1997, 427-52) More succinctly: Political sovereignty is threatened by global organizations that regulate worldwide trade. Ultimately the critic's argument is based upon the perception that free trade is capitalism run amok. It invites developing nations into its circle of commerce only to exploit that nation by imposing heavy tariffs upon its exports and limiting its production by imposing unrealistic environmental standards. (Pauly, 1997, 1-30) Moreover, critics see international organizations that regulate trade as threatening the authority of a state's sovereign will by the imposition of democratic values upon a society unable to financially or culturally support them. Forced Democracy - It's Everywhere One could dismiss this notion that democracy exists in virtually every major region of the world as a modern indulgence to international pressure. And while democracy may exist today in far reaches of the globe, to say that it is permanent or taken hold is folly. It is conceivable that this is partly because of the obstinate structural logic of aid agencies and especially the World Bank, whose officials are given portfolios of money to lend and projects to initiate with the understanding that their careers will suffer if they do not "invest". (Maxfield, 2000, 95-107) Part of the reason has been fear that if the WTO leans too heavily on weak, oppressive, disintegrating states, they will collapse altogether into new humanitarian emergencies. Instead, it dawdles and funds them while they disintegrate more slowly and millions of their people live shorter and more miserable lives because of abusive governance. Adam Przeworski states that: "During the period 1950-90, the poorest democracies had a 12 percent chance of dying in any particular year, or an average life expectancy of eight years. Several third-wave democracies (as defined by Samuel P. Huntington in The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century) in their lowest income category have outlived that expected life span, including Benin, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, and Nepal. Even among the poorest countries, there have been few breakdowns of democracy." (Przeworski, 1997, 121-26) According to Przeworski, "in the 10 post-communist candidate states for EU accession, 61 percent are dissatisfied with the way democracy works in their country. Yet, overall, 72 percent would not approve of its suspension." (Przeworski, 1997, 121-26) Sweeping societal transformations have resulted from economic development in a number of countries over the past 30 years. Excellent examples of this are South Korea and Taiwan whose economic growth brought about expansive social, economic and cultural change that produced expansive societal pressure for democracy. Where states have managed successfully to control and appoint civil society and to manipulate cultural symbols and belief systems in a way that legitimizes semi-authoritarian rule, the internal pressure for democratization has been obstructed or avoided completely. Democracy and Political Freedom It is really common for people to confuse democracy with elections, but democracy includes another variety of political acts that can be made to improve participation. However it is precise that these are within the rule of law context. The last, but not least, principle of democracy is Political Freedom. Political freedom ensures meaningful participation in democratic actions. Basically this concept makes the difference between totalitarian pseudo-democracy and a real democracy. In a democracy mobilizations or acts of opposition to the government are not against the rule of law because these are included in the constitution as legitimate acts and they should be protected by the government. Political freedom can be understood by several rights: the right to speak freely, even to criticize the government, the right to form associations, including political parties that may oppose the government; the right to run fro office, and the right to vote without intimidation and to chose from a slate of at least two candidates. The principles are very important and following them is essential for the success of a democracy. Furthermore it is vital to understand that they are part of an evolution and not the opposite. Trying to keep them static would be going against logic and an understanding. History has taught man that it is necessary to improve human relations and power relations. This way we need to look at the problems of democracy these days if we want to improve as a global society. Equality of Rights and Democracy Equality of rights has been an important issue and it still is. One of the failures with equality of rights, in present days, is that speaking on public issues has become harder because we don't have the necessary means to do it. Public opinion just simply does not exist because media is privatized and only represents an elite group. It is necessary to look at the case of North America from the outside. Comparing North America with Europe we can observe the big difference in the independent media. The argument to not have a run off is that it may be expensive and it may take time. But the practice has demonstrated that even small third world countries can pay run offs where the country as a whole can make a majority to choose who is going to be the head of the government. To consider this, in a better way, it is necessary to look at the opportunity cost of not having a run off which is corruption. Elites can easily buy representatives, in order to obtain favourable environment to make money. It is better not to trade the electorate's interest as they were commodities because this can destroy the electorate trust and can attempt with political stability. Referendums have been used in an attempt to achieve a more direct democracy, but they don't truly affect legislations. Non binding referendums do not ensure that a legislation is going to be made and they can be used to simple relax political troubles and not solve them. On the other hand binding referendums can be influenced by oligarchy through in the representative's chamber or senate. There have been several cases, especially in Latin America, of referendums which questions were modified and did not represent the peoples will, using the foolish argument that legislation may be too complex, that voters can get exhausted with deciding if they should vote yes or no. National Unity and Formal Democracy Initiatives are an important democratic instrument to promote a referendum, but the problem that they face is the high level of fragmentation in present societies. If an initiative can be made, its means that society is not atomized and there is a civil or natural society. In formal democracies, where the principle of majority rule is abused, democracy's inertia can create political segregation. Although the majority choice is not always reflected in legislations, it is possible that a decision made on the majority choice could affect some minorities in either milled or strong way. These decisions derive in a social misidentification as a national unity and could produce secession. Dickerson and Flanagan state that in those countries where liberal democracy has been successful, society has not been polarized into extremes of wealth and poverty. (Dickerson and Flanagan, 2005, 266) If it was not efficient, torture would not exist in our Countries; and formal democracy would be continuous if we could guarantee that it would be on the power owner's hands...When crisis' shadow is coming over, it is necessary to multiply plunder to poor countries to guarantee full employment, public freedoms, and high growth rates for rich countries (Dickerson and Flanagan, 2005, 267). Democracy is a wide conceptual field, however, some other conceptions and alternatives are open to enrich democracy and get it closer to a direct democracy. It is so that some conceptions like minimalist, pluralist, and deliberative have been elaborated. Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism The minimalist conception of democracy is the least inspiring one, because it shows democracy as an institutional arrangement to make political decisions in which individuals obtain decision power by means of a competitive vote fight. Even if this conception recognizes competition as important it denies the democratic process value. Bobbio and Dahl would accept minimal democracy only as a stage between authoritarianism and totalitarianism to democracy. Bobbio understands totalitarianism or dictatorship as a political regime that differs from a democratic liberal way due to the suppression of political rights and freedoms. A small group or elite monopolizes power and the result of this is an abusive regime. The traditional concept of democracy becomes muddled when government by the people is confused with government for the people (Bobbio, 1985, 89). Bobbio tells us that democracy should be identified by a set of rules that accomplish two objectives: 1) the rules tell us who is in charge and authorized to make collective decisions, and 2) what are the procedures. If it is possible to answer these questions with the rules, there is no doubt that democracy exists. (Bobbio, 1985, 92) Democracy is considered the supreme form of government, which is promoted throughout the world. On the contrary, there are many countries that are not ruled by a democracy. This causes the United States to promote democracy around the world. Democracy has become universal and international. Democracy has become embraced and promoted by a number of countries not just the United States. Promoting democracy, especially after the September 11th attack, has become a primary goal of United States foreign policy. This has caused an international debate on whether or not the United States should discard the notion that every country, that is not already democratized, should have this ideal type of government. Conclusion A substantial point experienced in the process of Globalisation and political change was the end of the Cold War; a time that established the US as a single superior power. It was here that we saw the concept of "The New World Order" - asserted by president George Bush Sr. The "NEW world Order" was supposedly based on world peace and opulence for all. The proposal was soon to be analysed in its utility or ignorance in the period of the Gulf war in1990. As a result far more convoluted political issues - structures of world disorder and advanced methods of intervention took place after 1991. The New World Order failed to act at a detrimental time in Africa - Somalia when genocide had occurred; outside intervention was required and the outside support was not responding as tragedy took place. The New World Order had no regulations to when it would intervene or when it was fit to demonstrate its power. The events of September the 11th gave confirmation to the notion "Globalisation creates global interdependence, and international terrorism exposes this without pity. The necessity for global political responses is made obvious, even when the world’s superpower tries to resist them." To the majority the importance of the discussion of globalisation is simply a matter of discerning the main trends in the social, political and economic organization of the globe, an objective challenge with its emphasis concentrated on mapping the relevant facts. However analysis of globalisation tends to be directed in vaster normative and ideological circumstances enabling value judgements about issues such as economic growth, international stability, the spread of democracy, and the possible dangers of regionalism. The liberal interpretation creates a number of judgements about the beneficial consequences of globalisation it fosters economic efficiency and motivates international institutions and problem solving; some would even assert that there is a general acceptance of the benefits of markets and liberal democracy. The liberal proponents of globalisation similarly believe that there are progressive consequences on economic, political and social behaviour. Such positive concepts have aroused debate by those emphasizing the correlation between globalisation and the perpetuation of inequalities. It would be incorrect to simply accept the proclamation of "progressive globalisation" at face value. We should not forget that globalisation is a politicised process creating both winners and losers. More generally, these assertions about globalization's impacts on democracy are repeatedly enumerated in terms of disjuncture or democratic insufficiency. State departments, it is admitted, lack the attainment to normalize or even manipulate many supranational performances and dealings, evolving breaches between state power and supranational supremacy. There are actually two apparently dissimilar but intimately correlated hypotheses here. First, there is an assertion pertaining to imperfect capability of the accepted or democratic determination as comprehended and performed through state-based democratic institutions; this is chiefly an assertion about the extent of supranational opinionated concerns related to state authority. Put in a different way, one should not commence by considering globalization as a menace to democracy but should in its place, consider it as an impulsion for the vital re-evaluation of democracy; to do in the different way is to encode some of the fundamental aims at issue. Ultimately, any proposals or conclusions for democracy in the background of globalization must be assessed with concentration to the experiential and normative assertions on which they base and the authority of the projected association between them. At this point-and not before--we require integrating the best obtainable pragmatic observations of what is happening with our historical and abstract speculations in originating democratic reactions to globalization. Political Participation is another principle of liberal democracy that is classified by its participation. Direct democracy and Representative democracy are the two main classifications. In Direct Democracy the people make their own legislations, not having to use intermediation by a representative. In representative Democracy there is intermediation and it is a representative elected by a majority in a determined area. In deed representative democracy is predominant in formal democracies in modern times. Democracy is a very wide topic and deserves to be studied from an unbiased perspective. Liberal democracy has shown to be evolutionary and revolutionary at the same time. We can not deny that democracy is fundamental for the common good and it is necessary for society. But we should not be conformist and let formal democracy go against its own principles. Criticism is important to build a better political environment, and in democracy it is its fundamental factor. North American democracy is no longer the most evolved one, because of the disequilibrium between Oligarchy and People. Civil society is weaker in occident than in Europe because of the presence of an atomized society. The principles of liberal democracy are being violated by a corporate society that undermines the meaning of the word democracy. This way, present formal democracy does not represent liberal democracy's principles because the majority has no power on the political arena and oligarchy uses the democratic process for its own good. References Barkawi, T. and Laffey, M., 'The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization', European Journal of International Relations, 5/4 (1999): 403-34. Bernstein, A. and Berger, P. (eds.), Business and Democracy: Cohabitation or Contradiction? (London, Pinter, 1998) 87-92 Bobbio, Norberto. State, 1985: Government and Society (English-Language Publication) 89-92       Chomsky, N., World Orders, Old and New (London, Pluto Press, 1997). 56-60 Clark, I., 'Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of International Relations', Review of International Studies, 24/4 (1998): 479-98. Cox, R., 'Global Restructuring: Making Sense of the Changing International Political Economy', in R. Stubbs, and G. Underhill, (eds.), Political Economy and the Changing Global Order (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1994), 50. Dahl, Robert A. 1991: Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press: 154 Dickerson, Mark and Tom Flanagan: 2005: An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach, 7th edition. (Toronto: Nelson Thomson learning) 239-67        Evans, P., 'The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalisation', World Politics, 50 (2002): 62-87 Gills, B., Rocamora, J., and Wilson, R., 'Low Intensity Democracy', in B. Gills et al. (eds.), Low Intensity Democracy: Political Power in the New World Order (London, Pluto Press, 1993), 3-28 Gray, J., 'Global Utopias and Clashing Civilizations: Misunderstanding the Present, International Affairs, 74/1 (1998): 149-64 Gunder, Frank A., 1993: 'Marketing Democracy in an Undemocratic Market', in Gills et al. Low Intensity Democracy, 45-46. Halliday, F., Rethinking International Relations (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1994); Scholte J. A., 'Global Capitalism and the State', International Affairs, 73/3 (1997): 427-52 IADB Latin America after a Decade of Reforms: 1997 Report (Washington: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 153. Lynch, M., 'Globalization and International Democracy', International Studies Review, 2/3 (2000): 91-102 Maxfield, S., 'Capital Mobility and Democratic Stability', Journal of Democracy, 11/4 (2000): 95-107. Nordskag M. and Ruud A., 'Transnational Oil Companies and Human Rights. What They Say and How They Say It', in A. Eide, H. O. Bergesen, and P. Goyer (eds.), Human Rights and the Oil Industry (Oxford, Intersentia, 2000). 82-86 Olsen, M., Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships (New York, Basic Books, 2000). 188-90 Pauly, L. and Reich, S., 'National Structures and Multinational Corporate Behaviour: Enduring Differences in the Age of Globalization', International Organization, 5/1 (1997): 1-30. Przeworski, A. and Limongi, F., 'Democracy and Development', in A. Haddenius (ed.), Democracy's Victory and Crisis (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997) 121-26 Schmitz, H. P. and Sell, K., 'International Factors in Processes of Political Democratization: Towards a Theoretical Integration', in J. Grugel, (ed.), Democracy Without Borders: Transnationalization and Conditionality in New Democracies (London, Routledge, 1999). 69-72 Schweller, R., 'United States Democracy Promotion: Realist Reflections', in M. Cox, G. John Ikenberry, and T. Inoguchi (eds.), American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000), 43. Sen, A., Development as Freedom (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999), 278. Sorensen, G., Democracy and Democratization (Boulder, Westview, 1998): 36 Stopford, J., 'The Growing Interdependence between Transnational Corporations and Governments', Transnational Corporations, 3/1 (1999): 67 Walter, A., 'Do They Really Rule the World?', New Political Economy, 3/2 (1998): 292. Whitehead, L., 'On International Support for Democracy in the South', in R. Luckham and G. White (eds.), Democratization in the South: The Jagged Wave (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1996), 271 Whitehead, The International Dimensions, in Schmitter, and Hurrell; Whitehead, L., 'The Drama of Democratization', Journal of Democracy, 10/4 (1999): 84-98 Read More