Democracy and Globalization

[this piece is a part of a work in progress on the topic of "Globalization for the Common Good: how the underlying features of globalization have made it incompatible with the common good"]


One should ask why globalization is often associated with democracy. Advocates of “responsible” globalization,1 especially liberal communists,2 have increasingly dwelled on democratization as the political wing of economic liberalization movement. This approach is apparent in the writings of several proponents of globalization and, the work of benevolent-millionaires such as George Soros, and several European non-governmental organization who work on democratization and liberalization. The reason I am drawing a parallel between these two primarily-western ideas is due to their underlying objectification of causes. In other words, they both turn the subjectivity of injustice and inequality into a self-blamed drama of bad luck and personal failure. They remove the culprit and distribute the blame between the populace. In this process, subjects are gloriously renamed “citizens.” I am not suggesting that dictatorship is better than democracy, or colonial exploitation of resources is preferable to the free market approach of the globalists. I am, however, suggesting that the underlying power dynamics of control remain strikingly similar in the old and new systems.

Democracy relieves power gatekeepers from the burden of responsibility of socio-political control, i.e. the dictator or the king. Winston Churchill indeed had a point when he said “… it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”3 From the perspective of a wise man of power (if one in fact exists), democracy is great as it brings power with very limited responsibility. In a democracy, whatever injustice occurs, it automatically gets assigned to the system while more hierarchical political systems are more subjectively criticized for abuse of power. After all the main beauty of democracy is its ability to ensure that responsibility transcends the rulers and gets extended all the way to the populace. A citizen is taught to take responsibility for whatever action his/her government takes while a subject defers authority as well as culpability to the rulers all together. During the Bush era, massive violation of individual and collective rights took place. But due to distributions of responsibility, which is inherent to democratic systems, the blame was easily distributed to different levels of the polity. And of course democracy, just like free market, gives space to change much more than the old rigid structures.

Similarly, globalization removes the burden of responsibility of economic inequality from any single actor or group of actors. In the parallel that I am drawing between democracy and globalization, the colonial approach symbolizes an authoritarian system. In other words, colonial powers were exploiting their colonies with relative impunity. But the resistance and global consciousness regarding the nature of colonial operations brought about a need for change. A similar, but less blatantly imperial system was therefore worked out: open market, capitalist globalization. Globalization objectifies exploitation. Operated by capitalist principles of open market and un-interrupted competition, it convinces the participants that if you lose, it is based purely on your abilities, or lack thereof (and partly luck, for that matter). There is no colonial power to be blamed anymore. So one better try to join the game of “constant state of emergency” and just run. Any moment of ponderation upon the real reason for running will set one back in the game of predator and prey. 4

What I am getting at here is a need for a thorough critique of the underlying principles of inequality and injustice rather than transforming the format that is perpetuating them. As new necessities arise in the human society, any dynamic socio-political system will either collapse or sustain itself by evolving into a more sophisticated, polished system. What liberal communists, who advocate for “responsible” globalization, are doing is in effect facilitation of this evolution: from a colonial approach to a global one with minimal modification of the foundations. Power structure remains primarily intact just as does the burning need for a critique of power.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

1 I am using the term “responsible globalization” to refer to incorporation of the idea of social responsibility and ecological concerns to the discourse of globalization. However, I recognize that this incorporation is only to the extent that it does not question the capitalist roots of their argument.

2 The term “liberal communist” is used to describe those who, according to Slavoj Zizek, “no longer accept the opposition between Davos (global capitalism) and Porto Alegre (the new social movements alternative to global capitalism). Their claim is that we can have the global capitalist cake, i.e. thrive as profitable entrepreneurs, and eat it, too, i.e. endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility and ecological concern.” Violence, p. 16.

3 Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

4 One of the principles of liberal communism, set out by Thomas L. Friedman, is a state of constant emergency in which questioning the flow of the affairs will set you back from the crowd. On page 115 of “The World is Flat,” Friedman tells a story called: Running with Gazelles, Eating with Lions. He says “On December 11, 2001, China formally joined the World Trade Organization, which meant Beijing agreed to follow the same global rules governing imports, exports, and foreign investments that most countries in the world were following. It meant China was agreeing, in principle, to make its own competitive playing field as level as the rest of the world. A few days later, the American-trained Chinese manager of a fuel pump factory in Beijing, which was owned by a friend of mine, Jack Perkowski, the chairman and CEO of ASIMCO Technologies, an American auto parts manufacturer in China, posted the following African proverb, translated into Mandarin, on his factory floor: Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you better start running.” Then he proceeds to even worse: his own analysis: “I don't know who is the lion and who is the gazelle,” Friedman writes, “but I do know this: Ever since the Chinese joined the WTO, both they and the rest of the world have had to run faster and faster.” By instilling this sense of urgency, Friedman and other liberal communists, are pursuing a colonial, medieval goal. They are trying to make sure that the subjects, who are now officially entitled “citizens,” voluntarily give up the will and ultimately ability to step back and ponder upon their lust for “more.” For, it is the very lust for “more” that fuels the capitalist machinery in the resurgence of its global reach, without being labeled: colonialist.