Impact_of_Globalization_on_Democracy

The Impact of globalization on democracy! We have increasingly become accustomed to hearing of terrorism, poverty and environmental disasters etc. occurring all over the globe. Many may even have become somewhat desensitized to the various reports emanating from our newsrooms. Sentiments such as feelings of ‘inevitability’, hopelessness or anger that ‘things are not working’ in our globalized society, are commonplace. After the shortcomings of state protectionist policies, evident in the 70s and 80s Australia, financial liberalization has been welcomed by many as the most important trend in, not only Australia but also the modern world economy (Treasury & Reserve Bank 2003). Others argue that this development is causing the problems of our contemporary world (Andrew Hurrell et al, 1995, p.449) as well as the globalization phenomenon. Whether one subscribes to the inadequacy of economic liberalism in its’ position as the dominant political paradigm today, to solve the widespread problems we are facing, or believes it is responsible for those occurrences, it is evident that a number of political economists address global issues by exploring alternative models of governance, as apathy toward political participation abound (Robert Kuttner, p.155). David Held has made a case for cosmopolitanism, a global democracy “extending across nations regions and global networks” (1996, p. 353). This author however takes issue with the possibility of and necessity for such global governance and argues that due to the policy inaction of economic liberalism which by popular perception governs the impact of globalization, democracy itself is in crisis. It is not hereby proposed that democracy is in a state of collapse, rather it infers that its’ strength is challenged and efficiency deteriorating as state power erodes in the democratic world. It is argued that state strength of democratically elected nation-states already in existence be enhanced in instead of cosmopolitanism. This essay will seek to discuss how globalization from a liberal interpretation impacts on democracy in a general sense in several specific ways. In the first section a brief outline will present democracy’s basic traits and its’ variations. Secondly, the definition of globalization as the dominant liberal economic paradigm will be clarified and its’ multifaceted impact applied to democracy. Policies which let corporations have, as bearers of the hegemonic ideology of modern political economy, unregulated access to global markets will be shown to be the cause of the unstable effects, unequal distribution of wealth which corrodes democracy. The disillusionment of the electorate will also be considered as an indication of the erosion of people’s power. Third, the imposition of democracy onto a society which is either eager for democracy or not yet ready for it will be analyzed to support the thesis. Examples will be given drawing on Cambodia’s experience of transition to democracy 1991-99 (David W. Roberts, 2001, p. xiv), the Howard government’s plans for democratizing Iraq (ASPI, 2003) and GW Bush’s post-war arrangements for Iraq (Benjamin Barber, 2003, p 175). Fourth section illustrates how globalization, as engineered by liberalized democracies has created the precedent for security issues with global terrorism, allowing policy makers to infringe on democratic rights in the world’s greatest democracy. While a thorough analysis of Held’s text is beyond the scope of this essay, the fifth premise indicates that an alternative such as cosmopolitanism is unnecessary, while emphasizing the author’s claim regarding the reinvigoration of state strength to galvanize democracy. The essay then concludes having demonstrated how these aspects fundamentally linked to globalization, are imperatives in the diminishing power of democracy. Since the birth of democracy, the basic idea that people should rule on matters which affect the people, has endured as a definition encompassing democracies today. This means in broad terms political engagement of citizens to cast vote, either directly on referenda as in the Swiss model (Barber, 2003, p.195) or for representation as in the US variant. Many forms of democracy exist, social democracy as perhaps best embodied by the Swedish model of welfare state capitalism (J. Vartiainen 1998), or the Asian illiberal democracies which have been criticized as consencracies, (Stephanie Lawson, 1997, p.118). A common trait is that democracies grow patiently “from inside out and from bottom up rather than from outside in and top down, which is why democratization takes so long” (Barber, 2003, p.195). Democracies may thus be seen as provisional fragile even, in its’ initial stages. Other aspects of importance in a mature democracy, is the support for civil and human rights as well as community and equality. While reports tell of increases of democratizing countries (Tom Conley & Doug Smith, 2006, p.95), this essay contends that democracy, as firmly established in different parts of the world as well as in nations in the process of democratizing, is damaged by the impact by an economic liberalism fuelled globalization. As will be illustrated later in section three, the Cambodian experience after the ousting of Pol Pot demonstrates intervention in a nation’s democratic process is impeding. The much considered topic of globalization has derived its’ attributes and definitions from liberal discourse as it encompasses more than just interconnections aided by rapid advancements in communications and technology, between businesses, people and cultures. It has also been declared by economic liberal policy makers and other economic actors as rhetoric for a policy which has to be adopted. Thus the liberal economic re- structuring that globalization infers, dominates the discourse. It is widely held from both right and left side of the ranks that the liberal assumptions on globalization has led to an economic system which is “self regulating as every laissez faire prophet from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman has insisted” (Kuttner, 2001, p.152), and so state intervention is seen as neither necessary or possible since the perfect economy has been implemented, evidently maximizing growth. Corporations in charge of the free markets, work politically to influence policy makers to put in place rules which further cement the power of corporations and their free trade policy agendas (Vivien Schmidt &Susan Strange, 1995, p.297). The “corporate agenda became the national agenda” ( Kuttner, 2001, p.149). The emergent regulatory role of supra-national agencies implemented after the Asian crisis to “harmonize tax laws”, regulating transnational business, facilitating private business, (Kuttner, 2001, p. 150) is itself of limited democratic structure, indicating that democratic governance has eroded at many levels. Increasingly, wealth is allowed to govern political outcomes at the expense of the nation-state. It is a contradiction that, because unbridled capitalism is volatile, short term financial speculators need to be regulated, thus the free trade mantra is seemingly at odds with itself. Policy makers must therefore be compelled to increase their capacity so that regulations however costly, be implemented to create a mixed economy, regaining stability of markets, growth, security and democratic citizenship (Kuttner, 2001, p.155). Democracy, direct or representative, with egalitarian and communal concerns, is demonstrated as being in crisis by the liberal forces which drive the globalization discourse. Policy constraints on domestic economy highlighted by external market forces, deems state intervention too costly. Consequently policy makers and economic actors engage in the coercion of the electorate to expect less of societal outcomes disciplining the public (Conley, 2004, p.184,187). It is precisely the persuasion of the voters that “there are no alternatives to the continuous adoption of economic liberal policies “ (Conley, 2004, p.195 ), which leads to diminished state strength, as policy failures blamed on market forces. If electorate and policy makers come to believe that globalization is an inevitability, paving the way for boundless consumerism (Cumins, 1999, p.276), inequality and loss of sovereignty in borderless societies, there is a risk of a self fulfilling prophecy as increasingly liberal economy is adopted with homogenization to both Government and Opposition parties – exhibiting few differences in their policies (Kuttner, 2001, p.155) In this context of globalization as an unstoppable force, politics and democracy become irrelevant, and so while globalization itself does not impact on democracy, it is the perception of globalization, which leads to inaction of the state to control political outcomes that does. No matter which political party got the majority vote. It is not surprising apathy among voters has become more common (Strange, 1995 p.299). Another debilitating effect on the potentiality of democracy and its’ natural evolution in a given place, is the willful imposition, spurred by globalization as per the liberal modus operandi. The tendency for liberalized powers sanctioned by the UN, seeking to “export democracy” (Barber, 2003, p.190), applying uniform democratic principles attempting to settle conflict, often has disastrous consequences. Cultural particularities and historical events make for one, a standard model of democracy unattainable, and enforced democracy is simply not democracy. The reactions to democratizing is thus counterproductive and in many cases ruinous. The Cambodian transition to democracy is a worthy example, while not suggesting UN peace keeping forces are counterproductive. After the murderous regime of the Khmeer Rouge ended in 1979, the country’s efforts toward democracy were challenged by the UN’s removal of Cambodia from the international agenda (unbelievably the Khmeer Rouge were legitimized as government by the UN for a period in the 80s). As the nature of Khmeer politics were not considered in the Paris mandate 1991, discord commanded UN conflict settlement attempts. But when violence broke out in Cambodia in 1997, the Khmeers settled the domestic power struggle themselves, without the aid of the UN. Many indicators point to that the transition with the intervention from the UN mandate underpinned by liberal assumptions, created the conflicts and obstruction to democracy (Roberts, 2001 p.xiv. ) In a current case, the Howard government outlined their plans “to ensure a robust democracy in Iraq” while “allowing them to make their own decisions” (Wainswright, 2003, p.2). Quite a contradiction coming from an invading force who should expect resistance to any policies enforced, democratic process included. Some may also question which of Iraq’s citizens will be allowed to make their own decisions. Liberal market forces are also seen at work in G. W. Bush’s post-Iraq war arrangements where private US corporations were called on to bid on reconstruction contracts (Barber, 2003, p.175). Free markets at the expense of democracy directly undermines the evolutionary process of people rule, as imposed democracy is a sham. The exacerbation of global terrorism made possible by globalization can be said also to be a reaction to the global restructuring which follows the dominant liberal paradigm, has led to abounding concerns of security (Graham Allison, 2000, p.83, Mousseau, 2002/03 p.15). Democracy is directly threatened as policy makers make decisions as they see fit to ‘safeguard’ the people despite the constitution, as was the case when Habeas Corpus was abolished in 2006 by the US government. Many argue that ‘the greatest democracy in the world’ became an illiberal variant. Leading liberal democracy can thus be seen as flawed force, unworthy of emulating. Perhaps another type of democracy will be proposed; the ‘post 9/11 democracies’ just like the Asian democracies have argued the need for relativism (Lawson, 1997, p.109). Held’s argument that the efficiency of national democracy is on the decline while the number of democratic countries are increasing (Conley, Smith, 2006, p.95), validates this argument. The author takes issue with cosmopolitanism on the account of the UN resolution on the national principle of self-determination (UN, 1960, 1514(xv)), a principle which assumedly derives its’ roots from basic human desires for cultural autonomy. The lack of such self determination, would render the cosmopolitan proposal impossible or undemocratic unless of course a state in an unlikely scenario willingly gives up sovereignty, however sovereign states seeking membership to the United Nations rely on this very principle. State capacity as a foundation for human rights is then fairly highlighted, and must be an aspect of both self determination and democratic rule, thus requiring a government which is subject to the rule of law and held accountable to its’ citizens, the very aspects of democracy eroding in a world governed by the hegemonic free market discourse. Also, in a global democracy, to which area does a global government give priority should differing demands conflict' It is argued here that the democratic, capable nation-state is able to address the needs of its’ citizens justly. Emphasis must therefore be on the deliberate increase of state capacity which leads to greater autonomy of the democratically elected nation-state, thereby restoring democratic principles and increasing the efficiency with which global problems are dealt with. In conclusion, the liberal interpretation of globalization shifting power from nation-state to the free market has had a fundamental effect on democracy. Each of the sections demonstrated challenges to the uphold of the basic tenets of democracy; the inaction of policymakers to produce equitable and satisfying outcomes for their citizens has led to diminishing public political engagement and faith in the political system which is paramount for the power of the democratic process, the unaccountability of the government as persuasive politics discipline electorate to lowered expectations of societal outcomes further removing democratic power from the state. The global corporate agenda has been shown to exercise significant control over domestic economy, again indicating diminished state sovereignty. Examples from Cambodia 1991-99 and the current situation in Iraq reveal disastrous consequences when applying uniform political principles to a society without adequate knowledge of cultural and political background. Imposition or export of democracy often has reverse effects. The abolition of Habeus Corpus in the world’s hegemon, resulted in further loss of faith in democracy compounding mistrust in governments. A crisis should rightly be seen as a challenge, not a collapse, and if state strength can be regained there is much to win. A self determined nation whose government is held accountable is bound to instill confidence in voters lending power to the people to insist on a mixed economy, egalitarian, human and environmental rights without a bureaucratic global regime. Democracy is thus a paradigm in need of reworking and may, by patient experimental application, extract improvements beneficial for all. .