Is It Correct To Assume That Globalization, Development And Democratization Go Hand In Hand - Literature review Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Is it correct to assume that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand? Introduction According to Fedorov (2000), the past decade has been signified by a period of intense global change. Many aspects of international life have gone through a rapid transformation, but one central trend is obvious: the increasingly interchange of people, ideas, information, goods and money across regional and national borders. This trend is commonly known as globalization and a number of observers have christened this modern-day period as an era of globalization. While globalization is often claimed as a principally economic occurrence, in reality it has other aspects, including the worldwide trend toward democracy and revolution in information and communication technology. Globalization continues to be a rather worrying phenomenon for all nations, generating fears that nations will lose their dominion and that a number of regulatory institutions that are set will turn out to be ineffective and obsolete before new ones are developed. However, an aspect of globalization that has been received unconditionally by industrial democracies is democratization. Yet again, democracy continues to be a controversial and even unreceptive idea in many nations. Opposition towards it comes not just from dictators scared of losing power, but also from normal citizens, who accept the rise in personal freedom but also worry that the change may have harmful consequences on their identities, culture and even their on their living standards. This particular paper will therefore analyze whether or not it is correct to assume that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. According to Xu (2005), globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. The postulation that globalization will widen the democratic scope has an esteemed history among open-minded individuals. According to new liberals, globalization and democratization share similar fundamental principle or goals that freedom of individual choice brings about desirable social consequences. More specifically, free markets are mechanisms of free decentralized exchanges between manufacturers and consumers, whereas democracy is a mechanism for such exchanges between politicians and voters. A competitive international market shares out economic resources fairly and efficiently whereas democracy allots political resources fairly and efficiently. In this case, an international market and a global convergence to democratic organization are mutually reinforcing. Known as the economic as well as the financial integration of various market societies, globalization enhances democracy by promoting economic growth (National Centre of Competence in Research, 2010). Xu (2005) highlights that globalization enhances democracy by creating a community with great interest in the smooth transaction of global business, world peace and therefore democracy. Globalization has made stronger economic links between nations, and global commercial interests with an essential drive for business success which has presently began to carry more political weights than it was before. Xu (2005) argues further that cross-boundary operations and investment need a peaceful world environment, while global peace has been thought to be associated with democratic institutions. As a result, commercial interests globally have an interest in pushing for democracy in order to secure business success. In view of that, totalitarian nations that open their economies meet greater pressures from international business for political liberaztion.This proposition attesting to the fact that globalization, development and democratization therefore goes hand in hand are one of the origins of the modernization theory. An example showing a close correlation between globalization, democracy and development can be observed in the case of South Korea. Over the last two decades, South Korea has followed the path of globalization through economic and trade reform resulting in a political reform. Only just in the 1980s, South Korea was governed by dictatorial regimes that didn’t allow much open opposition (Griswold, 2006).Presently, after many years of expanding trade and rising incomes, it has turned out to be a multiparty democracy with full political as well as civil freedoms. In other words, governments that provide their citizens with greater freedom to take part in international business find it more difficult to deny them political and civil freedoms, while governments that protect their general public behind tariff walls and other barriers to international business find it easier to deprive them those liberties. The post-world War II reform of South Korea in addition to its revival as key industrial power can therefore be proved as a legitimacy of this logic. On the other hand, the correlation between globalization (economic openness) and democracy across nations is obviously not perfect, but the broad trends are indisputable (Griswold, 2006). In contrast to the assumption that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand, some recent research has communicated concerns that the tide of globalization might hinder democratization, and so, development. One argument for this is that international trade will slow down democratization as an international market might enforce costs as well as constraints on governments in ways that restrict the possibilities for democracy. The National Centre of Competence in Research (2010), points up this fear as a political dilemma, which implies that globalization leaves little room for government plans, as a result driving countries under pressure to dictatorial means. Centre of Competence in Research (2010) also proposes the exposure of trade to global markets leads to an unstable economic performance and most likely a more economic and financial crisis. As a result, globalization might therefore bring about resistance to further democratization and re-establish a dictatorial way of making decisions, which is thought to be a better way to impose social disorder during the times of global recession. Although it is true that a dictatorial regime is better equipped to marshal social resources that will enable concentrate on international market competitions as well as withstand the storm of economic recession, there are limits to which the dictatorial leader can use his/her iron hand because oppression beyond limit might ignite a revolutionary backlash. For this reason, there are no secure grounds to argue that globalization affect dictatorships in a way different from how it affects democratic states. International trade will also impede democratization as it transforms civilians into some common ‘Homo-economicus’ who are more concerned about material benefits than public and civic commitments. The increase of consumerism throughout the globe begins to create the identity of citizens by the goods they consume, as a result blurring their political ideologies. Individuals therefore get concerned with their private businesses, disregarding whether their governments practice democratic decisions or not. As the reality of contemporary Western democratic states shows, the public has less interest in voting during elections and there are few citizens who dedicate themselves to the conduct of public policy (Centre of Competence in Research, 2010). As a consequence, the appeal for democracy gradually weakens. In this case, it would be incorrect to assume that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. In contrast to the example of South Korea’s adoption of the path of globalization through its economic and trade reform resulting in a political reform, Cuba’s case has been different. The rise of globalization has not challenged state authority or even pressures it to be consistent with the new international standards of governance, especially in areas accountability, transparency and the rule of law. The events of Cuban past has continued through a path of poor policy making and divided citizens. The citizens of Cuba have never come together or agreed on anything. Cuba has given in to poor leadership owing to its inability to set vision for the nation. Besides, a report by the Freedom House (2010) identifies Cuba as one of the countries where citizens have roughly no opportunity to enjoy basic rights in addition to experiencing heavy penalties for their independent opinions or action and where no opposition activity is allowed to exist. According to Eichengreen et.al, (2006), globalization sets up the habits of freedom and those habits begins to create the expectations of democracy in addition to demanding for better democratic institutions. Societies that embrace commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. Griswold (2006) argues that the connection between globalization, development, and democracy is not just a throwaway line. In theory and in practice, political freedoms reinforce each other. Globalization can speed up political reforms by expanding peoples’ freedom in order to exercise greater control over their day-to-day lives. In developing nations, globalization implies they do not have to beg or entice government officials to offer them permission to import television sets or even spare parts for their tractor. Controls or regulations on foreign exchange no longer limit their freedom to take trips abroad. As a result, they are able to acquire communication tools such as fax machine, mobile phones, satellite televisions, and internet access. In the case of workers and producers, citizens of more democratic nations become less dependent on authorities for their living. For instance, in a more open, market-driven, a government can no longer deny independent the media if they should offend the ruling authorities. In a more open society, the international media and consumer attention exposes as well as discourages the exploitation of workers. Multinational organizations have even greater motivation to offer competitive benefits in addition to wages in more globalized developed nations as compared to those that are closed. Economic freedom and rising incomes, sequentially, help to cultivate a more educated as well as a politically informed middle class. A rising business class and the wealthier civil society develop leaders as well as centers of influence outside the government. Individuals who are economically free eventually expect to exercise civil and political rights as well. On the contrary, a government that seal its citizens off from the rest of the world can more easily control them in addition to depriving them of the resources and information they could employ to challenge its authority. In the case of South Korea for instance, democracy and economic progress have interacted in its modernization. Reform and rapid growth attributed to its adoption of globalization has enabled the expanding middle class to experience for the first time the freedom of home ownership, cooperation with others in economic enterprise devoid of government control (Johnstone, 1999). Free trade and globalization has therefore played a role in enhancing democracy and human rights in South Korea. In this case, it would be correct to assume that that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. On the other hand, a contrary point of view to the assumption that that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand, offered by the World system theory, views globalization as secret formulas for westernization of the non-Western world by the multinational companies as well as global financial organizations based in, and controlled by North America and Europe (the major nations). According to this point of view, globalization produces opposite outcomes for the two categories of the societies: increasing power and prosperity for the rich major nations at the expense of the poor, minor ones. This implies that globalization, democracy and development no longer go hand in hand. It is also argued that globalization, if left unrestricted, would in the end tear down local economies, traditional ecosystem mechanisms and cultural diversity around the globe. They would therefore transform all the modernizing societies into mere accomplice of the core nations at the receiving end of a bad deal. This suggested solution to globalization or westernization is localization by de-link from the world techno-economic system. The contrary is also correct for the world system theorists. They consider that the preferred integration is neither through nor for the reasons for interdependent development. It is preferred for the sake of keeping the developing nations in a state of an everlasting dependency within a hegemonistic world order where the development of is dependent upon the underdevelopment of the minor through exploitation of the latter’s markets and resources (Teune, 2000). Therefore, the political dominance of global empires is replaced by global economies in charge of the developed West. Multinational companies and the global financial institutions are viewed as agents of global economy. Their main intention is to fulfill the interest of the developed West, although they argue to be promoters of global trade and development. Cuba’s view has therefore been that the loyalty to Western methods leaves societies more susceptible to ravages of global capitalism and more open to the element that corrode long-standing social and cultural norms. Based on these points of view, it would be incorrect to assume that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. On the hand, Griswold (2006), supporting the assumption that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand argues that globalization, development, and civil and political freedom seem to be tied together in the real world. Griswold (2006) argues that everyone can concur that the world is currently more globalized compared to how it was three decades ago, though less widely acknowledged is the fact that the world is much more democratized that it was three decades ago. According to latest survey by Freedom House, the share of the world’s population enjoying full civil as well as political freedoms have increased significantly in the last three decades, as has the share of the world governments that are democratic. This is attributed to the liberating winds of globalization. Within individual nations, political and economic freedoms also seem to be linked. In its yearly survey, made public in December, 2005, the human research organization reported that about 46% of the globe’s populations now live in nations it classifies as democratic and where citizens enjoy open political competition, independent civil lives, respect for civil freedoms, and free media (Griswold, 2006). . This compares to about 35% of mankind that enjoy a similar freedom level in 1973.The percentage of citizens in countries where civil and political freedoms are systematically oppressed, went down during the same period from 47% to 36%.The percentage of populations in nations that are partly free has remained at 18%.In addition, the percentage of world’s governments that are democracies has reached 64%, the highest in the 33 years of Freedom House surveys (Griswold, 2006). Within individual nations, political and economic freedoms also seem to be linked. Countries that are somewhat open to global economy are much more likely to be democracies that value political and civil freedoms compared to those that are relatively closed. Relatively closed nations are more likely to disallow steadily civil and political freedoms compared to open ones. Economic reforms and globalization therefore give reason to hope for political reforms (Kalb et.al, 2004). According to Kim (1998), the time span for progress would be extended to a stage of advanced democracy. In the case of South Korea, development has occurred over three stages: first, economic take off under a dictatorial regime; second, conflicting interests between democracy and economic progress; and third, balanced sub-systems in the age of globalization. It would therefore be correct to assume that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. Conclusion In my opinion, it would be correct to assume that that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. Globalization; democracy and development seem to be tied together. Everyone can concur that the world is currently more globalized compared to how it was 30 years ago. In addition, the share of the world’s population enjoying full civil as well as political freedoms have increased significantly in the last three decades, as has the share of the world governments that are democratic. This is attributed to the liberating winds of globalization. Within individual nations, political and economic freedoms also seem to be linked. Countries that are somewhat open to global economy are much more likely to be democracies that value political and civil freedoms compared to those that are relatively closed. Relatively closed nations are more likely to disallow steadily civil and political freedoms compared to open ones. Based on the analysis above, it would therefore be correct to assume that globalization, development and democratization go hand in hand. References Eichengreen, B & Leblang, D, 2006, Democracy and Globalization, National Bureau Economic Research. Fedorov, Y, 2000, Democratization and Globalization: The Case of Russia. Freedom House, 2010, Cuba among the most flagrant human rights abusers, says Freedom House, Retrieved on May, 13, 2011 from http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/05/cuba-among-the-most-flagrant-human-rights-abusers-says-freedom-house Griswold, D, 2006, Globalization, Human Rights, and Democracy, Retrieved on May, 13, 2011 from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10991 Johnstone, C.B, 1999, Globalization in Asia, Report from the Conference on Globalization and Regional Security: Asian Perspectives. Kim, W, 1998, Democracy and Economic Development in South Korea and its Application, International Journal of Korean Studies East-West Research Institue, Washington, DC. Kalb, D, Pansters, W.G & Siebers, H, 2004, Globalization and Development: Themes and Concepts in Current Research, Springer. National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR), 2010, Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century. Xu, J, 2005, Globalization and Democratization: Does International Trade till the Soil for Democracy? Teune, H, 2000, Globalizations and Democratizations: Forces and Counter forces, Political Science Department, University of Pennsylvania. Read More