Contemporary Global Controversy

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Global Governance
Global Politics and Power
Global Democracy
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

There is an increase in the number of global issues that have been inadequately addressed or have not yet been addressed. High levels of global poverty, humanitarian crises, environmental destruction, and financial crisis are but disheartening issues that the world is experiencing currently.

This has sparkled debates pertaining globalization, questions about global democracy, international relations, global politics and power –cum- governance are but at the center of the debate (Chaturvedi and Painter 382). This paper cuts across all those facets bringing into light the major conflicts and controversies that are innate to them.

Global Governance

Governance is a very key continuum in globalization, especially when power and politics comes into place. Governance is an issue that has had a lot of scholarly and realist approaches within the facets of internationalizing it. Theories and countering constraints are at the center of governance especially in respect to responsibility of power.

Over the years the world has experienced a rapid increase in creation of knowledge institutions on an international level where these institutions have depicted the effort through which different nations and international bodies have asserted democratic barriers at a global level on how power is to be exercised.

They have achieved this through their ability to modify structure and create processes through which the global society is supposed to deliberate and reason when exercise of global power comes into play (Miller, 328). This creates a vacuum in the proper and stringent processes that should be put in place by international knowledge institutions; whereby definite and clear setting or roles, standards and contributions by which power should be exercised on a global level.

Legitimacy is also cognizant in governance and its current decline is as a result of power delegation by the knowledge institutions as well as the world organizations dealing in democracy, security and sustenance. As a result coalitions amongst states in crippling and this can be attributed to an array of financial crisis which continue to haunt as well as cripple the world economy. These have a long-term negative impact in creating more strict trade barriers thus hampering economic policy integration among nations across the board.

Global Politics and Power

Power is at the epicenter to international relations. The divergence in concepts and alienation of non-representative groups overlooks the different approaches and forms of power in the international politics. Relevant concepts that are non-discriminatory need to be employed so as to help in understanding the various frameworks that forms power.

According to Barnett & Duval (2005) there are four concepts that consolidate power namely compulsory, institutional, structural and productive. This dictates the interpretation of power within international politics as “a disciplinary attachment to realism”. This creates a paradox of power that disintegrates capabilities and outcomes.

This holds that tendency of associating power with realism which creates the disconnection amongst those who discredit power with realism (Miller, 342). This is inherent in the institutions of knowledge where theoretical synthesis and facts create jitters within scholars of different subjects and facets especially in regard to international politics.

As different scholars may have different views on power social theorists, they also tend to agree on the fact that power is essentially a concept that is in contest. This brings to light the discussion of power within international politics a crucial subject which needs to be addressed in perspectives of how, why and when do some people/ institutions/ nations have power over others (Bernet & Duval, 39 – 69).

An analysis of power within international relations is essential in determining the role of social structures and processes that generate an array of differences within the capacity of those actors with power over others. A platform needs to be placed for determining the different dimensions within which concepts of power are built upon. The dimensions may distinguish power as either direct or diffuse (Bernet & Duval, 39 – 69).

This then creates the four tenets of power as highlighted earlier on. Power is a production through which social relations has an effect on the actors within their capacity to exercise power. Concepts of power are built upon the behavior and interaction points of the actors and their counterparts in the social and political setting.

This is prevalent within the community settings, where constitutive interactions dictate certain type of focus and actions upon use of power by any actor who has been given the mandate to exercise it on behalf of the group. Though this provides a number of constraints and regulation within those actors vested with the power, it is also in variably impossible to let no particular actor to govern any set of community.

On the other hand, there is a limiting constraint that power is only seen to produce effects which are likened to actors’ identities and self regulating (Bernet & Duval, pars. 39 – 69)

As discussed earlier on one of the prevailing power is compulsory power that focuses on the relationship between actors who directly impose circumstances through their legislation of their vested power directly to the social setting in play. Institutional power on the other hand is a concept that is similar to compulsory power the only difference is that, the actor acts indirectly upon imposing certain circumstances to the social setting he exercises power upon.

Structural power is a type of constitutive responsibility which the actor is supposed to follow upon dissemination of his powers upon the social setting or interactions the constitution has laid down. This represents a direct conformance to an order already issued within the precepts of exercising power (Barnett & Duval, 39 – 69)

Global Democracy

Democracy, social justice, solidarity and cohesion are the tenets of a solid policy that drives global governance and catapults global politics on a level of global economic sustenance. This though has not been the case, because the governance in place has made three main pressing issues to continue escalating namely: global warming, MDGs and threat of nuclear production.

Any democratic society would have sense in curtailing the above named issues. But the current governance has failed in the management of a sound framework that seeks to curb the increasing global warming, the achievement of millennium development goals (MDGs) and the threat of nuclear catastrophe which is on the rise.

These pressing issues are indicators of the problems prevalent within the global society (Held, 157 – 174). This shows a deficit in the democracy within the global setting in that there is no ‘one’ answerable to accountability, regulation and enforcement of such global and human pressing issues. Lack of cohesion, solidarity and standards of social justice proves lack of democratic integrations within the global facet.

Democracy is seen as a productive element in global development as it provides non-coercive political processes through which people are given a chance and opportunity to pursue, negotiate and reason out, on terms, regulations and conditions under which their interconnectedness, interdependence and differences are spoken-out and deliberated upon so as to conclusively come up with workable solutions.

This propels the magnitude at which a democratic global society would be at creating and modifying collective agreements and governance, thus creating an environment where people are free and they have been provided a mechanism through which their consents are respected and acted upon thus rendering their public lives worthy.

Therefore, there is the need for a definite structure that clearly defines the divisions of labor and responsibility among different international bodies in creating a pro-human sustainable board that seeks to tackle any issues or effects that are not fit for human life.

Currently there are a number of competing and overlapping organizations and institutions that are responsible for shaping and directing the global public policy e.g., the IMF and WHO. These calls for a stringent framework that stipulates good governance in defining roles and responsibilities of these global agencies (Held, 157 – 174)

Therefore, there should be a shift in the agenda of globalization where security and human rights should be at the centre of a coherent international democratic framework. This would then provide for a map about the nature and adequacy of governance, power and international relations on a global level.

Conclusion

Global Politics and international relations need to be founded upon sound governance and democratic setting. International politics is at the centre of coordination and collaboration by varying institutions in the achievement of sound global governance. Formal and Informal institutions are part of the execution of global governance a great need for their cooperation and coordination in creating significant knowledge upon the issue.

This call for cohesion, understanding and high level of commitment among the stake holders around the globe into setting policies and procedures that is in alignment to world economic development. This is in respect to tackling the major crisis at hand e.g. global warming, food crisis and increasing un-employment levels across the world.

The current expert models that have been created by these institutions are deemed to be in effective, this is because improper stratification of development politics that are geared to aligning themselves with different national cultures, expertise as well as knowledge.

Works Cited

Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. Power in International Politics. International Organization 59: 39-75, 2005. Print.

Chaturvedi, Sanjay, and Painter, Joe. Whose World Whose Order?: Spatiality, Geopolitics and the Limits of the World Order Concept. Cooperation and Conflict. 42(4): 375-395, 2007. Print.

Heid, David. Reframing global governance: Apocalypse Soon or Reform! New Political Economy 11(2): 157– 174, 2006. Print.

Miller, Clerk. Democratization, International Knowledge Institutions, and Global Governance. Governance 20(2): 325-357, 2007. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!