Jihad vs. Mcworld Article: How Globalization Hinders Democracy

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
Definition of both democracy and globalization
Ways in which globalization has hindered democracy
Ways in which globalization has fuelled democracy
Support of Jihad Vs Mcworld Article ‘Globalization does not promote democracy’
Mcworld: globalization of politics
Jihad; canonization of the world
Conclusion
Works cited

Introduction

This essay looks at the relationship between democracy and globalization; it’s a comparative essay between globalization and democracy. In the recent past, most economies in the world have been adopting strategies aimed at increasing democracy in all areas of the economy i.e. political, economic, social, etc. globalization is one of the factors that influence the economies o adopt democracy in their administrative structures. In this comparison, we will be looking at how globalization hinders democracy in the support of Jihad Vs Mcworld article.

Globalization began when European countries colonized other countries in other regions of the world; this was the beginning of the global connection within states. In the past few years, international bodies like IMF and World Bank have been putting pressure on some developing states to endorse globalization in their conditional programs. Democracy follows globalization i.e. globalization fuels democracy (Baeg, pp. 279-291).

Economies are nowadays affected by the forces beyond their borders which may be in form of political, economic factors. Globalization is the greatest threat to democracy In that the people are not able to make decisions effectively. Globalization is creating a new dimension of cultures by introducing foreign cultures which play a very important role in the spread of democratic values and orientations in the world. The increasing peoples will in the global scale, this has increased the aspects of democracy in the world and is seen in cases where leaders, rules, and regulations are imposed by these international bodies and states to sovereign states to force them to follow their course with little or no understanding on the impediments they expose democracy to, this is pressure to incorporate democratic views in the state

Definition of both democracy and globalization

Democracy is the will of the people being manifested directly or through their representatives in a certain situation or state. It is characterized by equality and freedom in all the citizens of a state. Democracy has its measures in the extent to which those freedoms and equality are given to its people (Baeg, pp. 279-291). Democracy has in the last century gained the biggest strides in its history and so has globalization, this shows that the globalization of all aspects of the society influences the country’s policies in favor of democracy. The reforms in the economies brought by globalization have helped economies increase their capacity and reduction of social inequality and poverty.

Globalization is the integrated combination of economic, technological, political, and social-cultural aspects of the different states in a different locations in the world. It can be seen in the global networks of communication, technology, trade, investment flows, etc. Economies are nowadays affected by the forces beyond their borders which may be in form of political, economic factors. Globalization is the greatest threat to democracy In that the people are not able to make decisions effectively. Globalization is creating a new dimension of cultures by introducing foreign cultures which play a very important role in the spread of democratic values and orientations in the world (Baeg, pp. 279-291). Globalization can be defined in the following categories:

Economics; a general way that globalization is conceived in economic terms is by the increased volume of exchanges of materials, commodities, labor, and so forth among the various national economies. I think there are several problems with such a formulation. A more specific and I think more useful, conception is that globalization is the globalization of capital. On one hand, this can be identified as the realization of the capitalist world market – that from the side of consumption. On the other hand, from the side of production, this means that all production (tends to) take place under the rule of capital. This does not necessarily mean that all production is capitalist but rather it means that capital in some sense mediates all forms of production. The shift is normally seen in the expansion of capitalist production (or of the control of capital) throughout the subordinated regions of the world and in the opening to the capital of the former Soviet bloc and (to a lesser extent) China.
Politics; globalization refers to the end or modification of the international world order. In other words, globalization indicates the relative decline of the sovereignty of nation-states. The decline of the sovereignty of nation-states is sometimes seen as leading to a deficit of politics (either rule by other social forces – economic forces, for example – or increasing political anarchy and instability). In other arguments, the decline of the sovereignty of nation-states is seen as leading to the formation of supranational sovereignty.
Culture; the general conception of cultural globalization is merely the increased contact and mixture of various cultures across the world that were previously isolated or bounded. Diasporas and cultural conflicts are part of this. A more specific formulation, more common perhaps outside the U.S., is that globalization is Americanization. U.S. television programs, movies, sports, the American English itself, and the various other elements of US culture are attaining a dominant position over other national cultures and even destroying them. Some also will argue that globalization is the globalization of Eurocentrism; I am interested in the compatibility or incompatibility of these two formulations.

Ways in which globalization has hindered democracy

A widespread consensus that globalization hinders democracy is emerging in society today. It has done this in the following ways (Held, p.191);

Firstly globalization has been the major challenge to liberal democracy because it focuses on national self-determination through the territorial state. In this case, the transnational crime syndicates are seen to pass the modes of regulations i.e. what globalization problematizes is the elective affinity between liberal democracy and the sovereign nation-state of the Westphalian order. Globalization has reduced the extent to which the people in the states can control their internal affairs; this is evident in the direct involvement of states through their consulates to influence decisions of the states in public decision making.

Secondly, globalization has led to the notion that a free market equates to democracy; it is simply a positive advance or extension of market principles that do not automatically foster democracy. Globalization has only led to social discrimination and exclusion both within and between the states. Market structures and capitalism ideologies are not indicators of democracy and thus a hindrance to democracy (Schwartzman, p. 14). The free market notion does not in any way increase the prospects of democracy and in fact, it hinders the growth of the local commodities due to stiff competition and thus local innovations are slowed down.

And thirdly technology has increased the extent to which communication is done in a fast, reliable, and effective manner. The information in these sources is tampered with and is mostly capitalistic ideas that do not indicate democratic moves. Since the global free market composes of global communication then this shows that the democratic potential will be constrained.

The fourth argument in support of globalization hindering democracy is that the existence of social policies in a state would undermine the gains made in a democracy. Democracy usually depends on the rights and freedoms of the citizens and the global norms have undermined democracy since they have influenced some countries ability to determine better social policies thus in some cases hindering the rights and freedoms of innovative social policies i.e. globalization threatens democracy by undermining a countries capacity to provide and guarantee some rights (Held, p. 191).

Ways in which globalization has fuelled democracy

Some proponents of globalization have argued that it has fuelled democracy. This can be seen in the following (Schwartzman, p. 14);

Globalization has led to some deficits in the regulation thus increasing the democratic policies formulation in the states; these modes of globalization legislations could make democracy friendlier. Globalization is also concerned with the political aspects and empowerment of the economy and thus increases democracy.

In countries that have a military or dictatorship forms of government’s human rights and freedoms are in most cases constrained, this facilitates the pressure from the global scale due to the perceived breaking of human rights and thus force the governments to change to a globally recognized system of government thus democracy grows (Barry, p. 20).

Civil societies like NGOs have in the recent past gained a lot of ground for negotiations, most of these organizations are aimed at eliminating social ills like poverty, hunger, etc. but in the recent past, they have increasingly fought for human rights in many regions in the world. This empowerment of these organizations which in some cases are global e.g. the red cross, share ideologies and policies which can be seen as a spread of globalization and at the same time fuelling the democratic aspect of the social interactions in the world.

Labor unions are formed by employees to fight for their rights as workers and to increase their bargaining powers, in the recent past the labor unions have been increasing and forming regional bodies because of the aspect of transfer of labor to foreign markets and thus this form of globalization in some sense has fuelled the increase or the spread of these unions and thus democracy has also spread (Schwartzman, p. 14).

Globalization can be seen to foster democracy but it will have pros and cons when exposed or analyzed in the political aspects, the table below shows this comparison;

Globalization and democracy;

	Globalization fosters democracy	Globalization hinders democracy
Left	Liberal cosmopolitanism; Global civil society, this has increase the citizens negotiation abilities and has increase the spread of workers rights around the globe. Cosmopolitan governance; this is where the society will have little say on and the government will be based on the international recognized democracy. Transnational state brought about by the multinationals operating in the different states. Human rights and freedoms have increasingly been respected by many states in the world due to globalization. Cultural mixture promoting human understanding and harmony in the global society.	Social democracy; Globalization takes powers from the national state and the state is the only forum to conduct democratic politics. This reduces the states ability to adopt their own strategies which might be against the global society since they will be viewed as in human. The decline of national sovereignty has removed the protection the states previously held which guarded the society against capitalism
Right	Capitalist democracy; Capitalist democracy seems like an adequate label for this group. The globalization of investment and capital is in itself democracy. The argument is either that the rule of capital is inherently democratic and thus the globalization of capital is the globalization of democracy. Or that the US political system and the “American way of life” are synonymous with democracy and thus expanding US hegemony is the expansion of democracy. The two, in fact, usually go together. The spread of the US way of life is in itself the spread of democracy.	Traditional values; conservatism; The reduced and lack of sate control leads to anarchy and instability. The spread of the American way of life denies states national identity and self determination. The mix of cultural and religious traditions leads to conflicts. The states are loosing the control over their own national territories and values.

Globalization is not optional for economies nowadays it has become a necessity to ensure that they obtain the resources, technology, labor, skills, etc that they need for their development. Globalization and development are two contributors of democracy, globalization bring development in all the sectors of the economy, it gives the state the ability to identify the areas in which it is poor and help in the adoption of policies that have been successful elsewhere in the world (Barry, p. 21).

Support of Jihad Vs Mcworld Article ‘Globalization does not promote democracy’

Benjamin in the Atlantic magazine observed that two outcomes in the world today are possible and in some cases being experienced in the political aspects of states, he indicated them as follows;

The sterilization of large swaths of the people by an issue like conflicts and bloodsheds has threatened the internal harmony of states by increasing the conflicts in the states on the grounds of tribe, cultures, races, etc.
The situation of being born in a society that demands the integration of the and uniformity on the global scale has forced the economies into one global network which is characterized by converging needs, tastes, and preferences of citizens of the world in products like computers, phones, etc.

These two forces are referred to as the forces of jihad and the forces of Mcworld in the article which are driven by equal forces in different directions, one is driven by parochial hatred and the other by the globalization trends of liberal trade and free markets phenomenons.

Mcworld: globalization of politics

This approach has four aspects which are characterizing the globalization of politics; they can be discussed as follows (Barber);

Market imperative; economies are pushing their search for markets to foreign markets and this is forcing the opening up and establishment of regional bodies with common markets reducing the sovereignty of economies concerned. Transnational trade where there is free trade, currency conversions, international banking services, etc, has increased in the reduction of the national identity of states.
Resource imperative; democracy is based on the values of nations being able to me their decisions from their citizens. Globalization has reduced this and increased the overdependence on the international bodies for finances, reforms, etc. this has increased the overdependence of states to others due to lack of resources, and thus very dangerous precedence is set.
Information technology imperative; this imperative has made the communication and data flow fast and efficient.
Ecological imperative; this has increased the cooperation of the economies in terms of environmental conservation issues since it is a common challenge for all states.

Jihad; canonization of the world

Jihad is the opposite of Mcworld and is characterized by the detribalization of large swaths of the people by an issue like conflicts and bloodsheds; this has threatened the internal harmony of states by increasing the conflicts in the states in the grounds of tribe, cultures, races, etc. it has fuelled against the attitudes of uniformity and integration even in areas where there are universal laws and justice.

Jihad has ensured the spread of identity values in the states, the sense of community and solidarity among the citizens, it has emphasized the aspect of parochialism and exclusions of states. This is a good move to increase the democracy in the society which is eroded by the globalization of politics. These aspects of jihad have fuelled the breakdown of civil rights and freedoms with an emphasis on identity in the communities. This has seen the emergence of civil wars, tribalism, etc (barber).

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that the Jihad vs. Mcworld article helps us get back to basics. We need to examine coolly whether a global democracy is possible and then whether it is desirable. Despite sporadic enthusiasm for the United Nations as a potential world government, in the era of globalization, very little indicates that this is a realistic option. We do, however, need to recognize that the dynamics of globalization seem to be outstripping the ability of its political shell to achieve stable governance. New forms of governance at a global level are emerging and are likely to be extended both horizontally and vertically. Nor should we ignore the very real potential that globalization—as a social and cultural process as much as an economic one—has to generate new relations and new forms of community at a transnational level. This is likely to be a more complex and messy process than a simple extension of liberal Western democratic norms as seems implicit in the various calls for a cosmopolitan democracy. The world is speeding up, but the political process is now beginning to catch up.

In my view and analysis above the argument that globalization facilitates democracy still stands strong due to the impact on the states. The increasing peoples will in the global scale, this has increased the aspects of democracy in the world and is seen in cases where leaders, rules, and regulations are imposed by these international bodies and states to sovereign states to force them to follow their course with little or no understanding on the impediments they expose democracy to, this is pressure to incorporate democratic views in the states.

Democracy has in the last century gained the biggest strides in its history and so has globalization, this shows that the globalization of all aspects of the society influences the country’s policies in favor of democracy. The reforms in the economies brought by globalization have helped economies increase their capacity and reduction of social inequality and poverty.

Works cited

Baeg, Hillum. “Globalization and Democratization: Boon Companions or Strange Bedfellows?” Australian Journal of International Affairs. 50 (1996): 279-291.
Barber, Benjamin R. “Jihad Vs Mcworld.” The Atlantic Magazine. 1992: Web.
Barry, Jones R. The World Turned Upside Down? Global and future of state. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.
Held, David. Political Theory Today. The Nation States and Global System in Held, D. (Eds). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 191.
Held, David. Democracy and Global Order: from modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press, 1995.
Schwartzman, Kin C. “Globalization and Democracy.” Annual Review of Sociology. 24 (1998): 14.

Click Here To Order Now!