Is globalization spreading democracy

The contentious issue of globalization has captured much attention from various scholars and is rigorously studied upon by the myriad of dimensions of globalization – namely social, political, economy and culture. This essay will attempt to focus on political dimension of current global society. The political characteristic is gauged from the viewpoint of democracy and democratization and is examined together with the social influences rendered by globalization as a process. The paper shall deliberate on ways in which globalization may have aided – both positively and negatively in different parts of the world –democratization of nation states, and proposes that globalization doesn’t just spread the influence of democracy worldwide, but beyond that, it produces an evolving concept of democracy and perhaps one that is towards global governance structure. During 1970s, there were approximately 30 countries categorized as democratic country, and this figure grew to around 90 countries by 2009 (Kollmeyer 2014, p. 172). Similar observation was found by Held, that democratization has been on the rise steadily, citing that more than two-thirds of states in 1970s were authoritarian in nature compared to less than a third now (Held 1997, p. 251). He suggest that the fall of Berlin wall and post-apartheid South Africa are symbolic changes that indicates the growing democratization. The maturing Europe over the last half-century, from the brink of self-destruction to establishing regional EU and other new mechanisms of collaboration, shows how globalization reality has contributed to democratization of the world (Held 1997, p. 263). In a published report of Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2015, out of 167 countries it tracks, 116 countries are classified as ‘democratic’ (includes categorization of full, flawed and hybrid democracy) while 51 countries are classified as authoritarian1. This in contrast to its own tracking of 2006 where there were 112 countries as democratic and 55 authoritarian regimes. The report shows that in 2015, approximately 65.9% of world population enjoys some extent of democratic principle, an increase from 61.8% in 2009. While the empirical evidence above does suggest that globalization is spreading democracy, interesting observation worth exploring is that the number of ‘full democracy’ fell from 28 to only 20 countries (example of relegated countries include Japan and France) – an indication of a downward trend in the magnitude of democratization evident within economically advanced countries. The following section explores the underlying relationship between globalization and democracy, as well as to explore the question of whether globalization-democracy trend is universally homogenizing, or produces opposing paradox. In order to explore the relation of globalization and the spread of democracy, it is then vital to first outline the definition of these two terms, to avoid simplification and to outlay clear scope. Globalization and Democracy – the contested concept To gauge on the effects of globalization therefore requires some understanding on the term by both critics and advocates. The debate on globalization varies widely as it is “possible to pronounce virtually anything on the subject” (Scholte 1997, p. 430), where some term globalization as not only a “misleading concept” but rather instead as an “age of transition” (Wallerstein 2000, p. 251), while others view it simply as a myth (Douglas, Wind 1987, Hirst 1997). Such dichotomy is generally categorized as ‘strong globalization’ and ‘weak globalization’. The proponents of strong globalization, such as Giddens (Giddens 1990), suggests towards unified or singular global society, where non-state actors transcends beyond the narrative of nation-state sovereignty towards borderless market and global governance, as propagated in world polity (Meyer, Boli et al. 1997). Weak globalization, on the other hand, argues against the former’s notion that globalization is producing homogenous global economy while undermining the legitimacy of nation states. Such view of universal standardization “appears naive and over simplistic” as local forces are always present (Douglas, Wind 1987, p. 19). There are findings that while globalization renders the dynamics of domestic markets, countries can still overcome challenges via policy and regulation “without undermining their economic performance or their egalitarianism” (Kollmeyer 2003, p. 372). While the above views focuses lot on economic globalization, the role and concept of sovereign nation state is highlighted as the key difference and it impacts the political nature of globalized world. Already the strength of nation-state institutions are seen as in decline, as there is widening mismatch between domestic electorate demand and actual government policy (Kollmeyer 2014, p. 172). Moving beyond the narrative of sovereign nation state gives rise to the role of other ‘rational thinking’ supranational and non-governmental establishment, which Meyer terms as the ‘otherhood’ (Meyer 2000, p. 239). A third viewpoint that takes the middle ground is ‘transformational globalization’. Globalization here is rooted in Robertson’s view that globalization is “compression of the world and intensification of consciousness” of the world (Robertson 1992, p. 8). The general view within ‘transformational globalization’ is that globalization as a continuous process produces various societal changes, and acts as agent of transformation, rather than destruction, of state institutions such as “welfare state, national democracy and markets”, moulding them to be globally compatible (Kollmeyer 2003, p. 373). Democracy, as expounded by W.B Gallie (Gallie 1955), is an “essentially contested concept”, where various different definitions exists for a particular term or concept until the term itself has no clear “definable general use of any […] as the correct or standard use” (Gallie 1955, p. 168). There are many ideologies and conceptualization of democracy, such as direct democracy, participatory, representative, polyarchy and so on. For this essay, ‘democracy’ shall refer to the classical, and arguably generalized, notion of demos (people) and kratos (power) – where political power exist through participatory mechanism for the majority mass in decision making. According to Robison (1996), popular democracy should intertwine the distinct spheres of political, social and economic dimension, where democratic participation allows “changing unjust social and economic structures” (Robinson 1996, p. 624). He further noted that mass movements for democratization essentially seeks fundamental social change, and democracy is concerned on both process and outcome. The definition of globalization and democracy as above ensures the context of following sections which we can evaluate and gauge better on how globalization spread democracy. The main premises of the argument will be based on concepts of Marshall’s typology of citizenship rights, Robertson’s glocalization and Meyer’s isomorphism, and how these interconnected theories explain the evolving trend arising from globalization. Marshall’s Citizenship Rights In tracking the gradual development of democracy in Britain, Marshall proposed three elements of citizenship rights. The first of citizenship issuance, civil element defined as “liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid contracts, and the right to justice”, followed by political rights – “right to participate, execute power”, and thirdly social rights – right to economic “welfare, security and living according to the standards prevailing” the society (Marshall 1950, p. 8). The first civil right was accorded in 18th century, gradually followed by political rights in 19th century and subsequently social rights towards the 20th century. This development, albeit limited within the Anglo-centric context of Britain, shows that economic globalization emerging from Industrial era Britain spurred healthy democratization. The gradual domestic change seen through Britain is crucial as it is later exported worldwide through its Commonwealth network of newly independent countries, supporting the argument that diffusion process is possible among countries with historical and cultural ties (Kollmeyer 2014, p. 181). Glocalization The ‘transformative’ force brought upon by globalization is observed to have resulted in a world of duality-effect, or binary opposites, where at one hand, globalization behaves as a homogenizing agent while on the other hand, local element becomes agent of heterogeneity. The interaction and relationship of global-local forces is termed as glocalization - the unique tailoring, or customization, of universal ‘global’ to suit particular ‘local’, derived from Japanese term dochakuka. The term glocalization highlights the “interdependencies of the local/particular and the global/universal” that is to say, glocalization is the possible dual scenario (or outcome) by two equally capable homogenizing global force and local heterogeneity force (Giulianotti, Robertson 2004, p. 546). While Robertson explored the concept of glocalization in the predominant context of cultural and social change, it is also possible to view in terms of political change. One study has observed glocalization in politics via popular U.S. TV series ‘The West Wing’, where ‘good values’ – American and liberal values – and norms are “recontextualized globally” via ‘didactic dialogic mode’ and consumed further by global audience (Wodak 2010, p. 57). World polity / isomorphism World polity attempts globalization as ‘cultural and institution’, where it highlights the widespread cultural consciousness of local and national ‘embeddedness’ and its interdependence (Meyer 2007, pp. 261 - 263). Instrumental culture is the outcome of stateless world with ‘actors’ who collectively creates rule to define and legitimize their own structures based on “rationalistic and universalistic terms” (Meyer 2000, p. 246). Meyer states that cultural and institutional globalization leads to two proposition, first, that changes in national level is produced by variations in dominant world models – what can be seen as ‘isomorphism’. Meyer elaborates that ‘isomorphism’ explains worldwide trends – seen at individual, societal, and national level – such as increased female students in higher education worldwide (instead of only in Western core countries as earlier theorized by some scholars), nationalized education system with standard curriculum, general human rights idea and healthcare, to name a few (Meyer, Boli et al. 1997, p. 152). Nation states draws down structure and authority from being embedded in a larger world society, conforming to the collective existing structure. The second proposition is that it demands good citizenship in world society by global norm (Meyer 2007, p. 263). For example, nation-states are modelled upon “external culture” that at times can be “inconsistent with local practices” (Meyer, Boli et al. 1997, p. 154). Such externally driven identity that may well be in contrary to local norms lead us to the concept of ‘decoupling’ – the contrast of generally accepted values from actual pragmatic actions. Meyer concludes that cultural and institution globalization can lead to “unexpected isomorphism among social units, high structuration of the units” and with higher length of internal decoupling within the units (Meyer 2000, p. 246). An example of above can be observed from Nobel winner Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar. After decades of junta-rule, Myanmar now enjoys the path of democratization. While internationally her party’s expounded ideals of democracy and human rights are well accepted and seen as coherent with global standards, such rights are not enjoyed by the local Rohingya minority. Even after the recent election, where her political party was propelled into power thanks to much celebrated ‘international ideals’, Myanmar still continue to institutionally discriminate against its local minority.  Towards Liberal democracy Interesting development that is observed from the combined effects of isomorphic glocalization within the world polity structure is the opposing dual effect on democratization in different parts of the world (Kollmeyer 2014, p. 171). Staying true to the possibility of both homogeneous and heterogeneous effect of glocalization, democracy within core economic countries is in the decline, while concurrently within peripheral and non-peripheral countries it is on the rise. This observation on “political consequence of globalization” shows that while globalization force produces universal tendency for political change, it also leads to particularizing tendency of strengthening and hindering democracy in different countries (Kollmeyer 2014, p .173). Kollmeyer suggests an emerging pattern of political change whereby 1) gauged by the granting of basic civil and political rights, democratization is on the rise within non-democratic states and 2) by reducing social rights and succumbing to transnational process, strength of democracy is in decline in established core countries. By utilizing researches based on popular indices of Freedom House and Polity IV, Kollmeyer cites four possible conclusions that leads to the first pattern of strengthening of civil and political rights globally (Kollmeyer 2014, pp. 180-181): Role of intergovernmental organisation (IGO), as the ‘otherhood’ actors, carrying social norms, help spread democracy. Authoritarian countries with democratic neighbours are likely to embrace democracies more. Democracy diffusion can occur across geographical boundaries given that there are cultural, diplomatic or historical ties within the countries Economic globalization – in terms of trade and capital flow – disrupts authoritarian source of power. The role of IGO, and international non-governmental organization (INGO), are also increasingly crucial in current transnational setting. IGOs have been established to manage “transnational activity and collective policy” and the increased number– from 37 IGOs and 176 INGO in 1909 to 300 IGOs and 4,624 INGOs in 1989 – reflects its growing importance (Held 1997, pp. 259-260). IGOs’ foundational operation is based upon goals and expectations in regards to aligning member states on particular issue/agenda, and IGO allows cross-cultural understanding for normative influence, where the influence is not found from IGO to states, but rather between the member states “mediated by interpretive structure” the IGO provides (Torfason, Ingram 2010, pp. 356-357). Study has shown that the networks of IGO facilitates democracy by transmitting information between states as a normative diffusion, and is “fundamental to global democratization”, adding a note however that the impact of democratization on a state depends on which IGO it is networked with (Torfason, Ingram 2010, p. 373). The influence of IGO network depends on involved state’s democracy level and the connectedness of the IGO to those states. While their premise is that interaction with other states within the IGO network results in homogenizing effect over time, it depends on 1) the difference of democracy level between states, and 2) the effect of democracy enhancing influence of higher democratic country is higher than that of democracy reducing influence of less democratic states (Torfason, Ingram 2010, p. 360) Again, as gauged by above observation, Myanmar will be a good example of such democratization showcase. Surrounded by democratic countries of South East Asia (the depth of their democracy is definitely contestable), along with IGOs (such as ASEAN) operating and perpetuating liberal dimensions of political and civil rights, and growing influence of good governance, development promise and attractive inflow of capital encouraged the once authoritarian country to embrace democracy. While embracing international norm, it still displays traits of high internal decoupling, as anticipated by glocalization concept. The second pattern highlights reduction of social and socioeconomic rights, seen mostly within established core countries. Globalization has led to countries having less, or limited, control over domestic consequences of transnational process, resulting in capital movement bypassing democratic processes answerable to the electorates. Korpi and Palme (2003, cited by Kollmeyer 2014, p. 183) finds that social rights grew in quantity from the 1930s up until 1980s, when policy reversal was done due to rise of neoliberal political parties and growing pressure of global capitalism. One worthy mention is that the diminishing social rights may not be as an outright reduction, but rather due to social provision outgrown by social needs itself, that is to say, government allocation may have increased, but actual growing demands of social beneficiaries outgrew the budget increment (Kollmeyer 2014, p. 183). By extending aforementioned observation with Marshall’s typology of citizenship rights, Kollmeyer conceptualized democracy by two dimensions. First by liberal dimension that is defined within the pillars of civil and political rights. The second is social dimension, running along the issuance of social and socioeconomic rights. With the two pattern observed earlier, there is indication that globalization is thwarting global citizens towards a ‘liberal democracy’ – one with a high civil and political rights but with lower social rights and equality (Kollmeyer 2014, p. 179). While the degree and experience of democratization varies worldwide, this finding supports the theory nevertheless that globalization perpetuates the spread of democracy. Modernity and changing values In their research paper, Inglehart and Welzel (2010) looked at the link between modernization and democracy, theorizing that individual cultural value variables plays crucial role in democratization of collective society. Their analyses of World Values Survey and European Value Study (WVS/EVS) reveals two dimension of cross cultural variation: 1) traditional versus secular-rational values, and 2) survival versus self-expression values (Inglehart, Welzel 2010, p. 553). The change of values can be traced with economic development; agrarian society associates highly with traditional, religion, national pride and submission to authority. Developing into industrial society brings forth secularization and rationalization while emphasizing on survival, with subsequent post-Industrial era bringing beyond existential survival value to individualized self-expression. In framing the ‘cross cultural variation’, they outlined four modernization narrative (Inglehart, Welzel 2010, p. 552); Modernization is not linear – The narrative of modernization is not one of a single monotonous journey, citing while Industrialization brought a shift from traditional to secular rational values, subsequent post-Industrial phase increases emphasis on individuality and self-expression values. Socio-cultural change is path dependent – while it was noted that generally economic development brings changes in values and viewpoint, element of religion plays influence in drafting unique social outcomes Modernization is not Westernization – as can be seen from the rapid rise of Japan, China and India while maintaining their uniqueness, true to glocalization force. Modernization doesn’t automatically bring forth democracy – it can as well lead to communism, theocracy etc. However, democracy becomes the highly probable choice By studying the WVS/EVS data on nation’s level of self-expression values plotted against change in democracy that occurred between 1984-1988 to 2000-2004, their finding suggest that countries with highest unmet mass demand for democracy change formed the chunk of nation state movement towards democracy, establishing link between individual level cultural value change to societal level democratization (Inglehart, Welzel 2010, p. 562). An interesting observation from this finding is that increased democratization is not driven by desire for equality, but rather due to change of value among mass public, resulted from continuous globalization, seeking more freedom and self-expression. Moving forward – Postmodern Global democracy With the continuous process of globalization giving rise to multitude of changes within world polity, the concept of democracy and governance approach to world system may need to be re-examined. Held suggest few ways globalization has transformed the nature of democratic politics; that effective power is no longer exclusive with nation states as it has enlarged to include the ‘otherhood’ actors, the operations of state is increasingly complex with global and regional forces at interplay (Held 1997, p. 261). The challenge, and excitement, will be in charting the course of reinventing democracy to suit a truly global society that meets the demand of mass public. While there are a number of suggestions on how best democracy can be improved to cater to global society, Scholte has brought forward the following, some aspects and traits of a truly ‘postmodern global democracries’ (Scholte 2014, p. 12 - 21): Transscalarity – transscalar democracy treats all spheres as one social space, and emphasizes on the interconnections and network model of various dimensions. Hence, democracy is achieved through fluid mobilization across local, national, regional and global level instead of bounded by geographical limitation Plural solidarities – individuals can embrace various multiple identity and the magnitude of any identity attachment can fluctuate according to need, where one could align with a national public (on national interest issues, for instance language policy) and at the same time align with universal human values (for example disaster relief) Transculturality – recognizes the diversity within and mixture across cultural variations, and embraces epistemological pluralism and avoids homogeneous simplification of categories, like ‘West’, ‘East’, ‘Asia’, etc. Egalitarian distribution – resource distribution is performed in a way that constituents have equal opportunities to influence outcome, for instance, a globalized basic income Eco-ship – embeds democracy to be in direct concern with ecological integrity and preservation. Conclusion While globalization as a continuous transformative process produces multitude of changes, be it in social, political or economy, it does not however bring a conclusive and total homogenizing effect. As matter of fact, as seen earlier, it leads to a rather paradoxical outcome of opposing binary. Hence, though the magnitude and experience of democratization may differ from different parts of the world, there are adequate evidence to conclude that globalization does spread democracy. As individuals and agencies gets intertwined further by the force of isomorphism and the resulting glocalization effect, political democracy concept needs to be reinvented and modernized, to be truly global in nature that reflects the changing values of modern citizens.  BIBLIOGRAPHY DOUGLAS, S.P. and WIND, Y., 1987. The myth of globalization. 22(4), pp. 19-29. GALLIE, W.B., 1955. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, pp. 167-198. GIDDENS, A., 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press,. GIULIANOTTI, R. and ROBERTSON, R., 2004. The globalization of football: a study in the glocalization of the ‘serious life’. The British journal of sociology, 55(4), pp. 545-568. HELD, D., 1997. Democracy and globalization. Global governance, 3, pp. 251. HIRST, P., 1997. The global economy-myths and realities. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), , pp. 409-425. INGLEHART, R. and WELZEL, C., 2010. Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8(02), pp. 551-567. KOLLMEYER, C., 2014. Glocalization and the Simultaneous Rise and Fall of Democracy at the Century’s End. European Glocalization in Global Context, , pp. 171. KOLLMEYER, C.J., 2003. Globalization, class compromise, and American exceptionalism: Political change in 16 advanced capitalist countries. Critical Sociology, 29(3), pp. 369-391. MARSHALL, T.H., 1950. Citizenship and social class. Cambridge. MEYER, J.W., 2007. Globalization theory and trends. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 48(4), pp. 261-273. MEYER, J.W., 2000. Globalization sources and effects on national states and societies. International Sociology, 15(2), pp. 233-248. MEYER, J.W., BOLI, J., THOMAS, G.M. and RAMIREZ, F.O., 1997. World society and the nation‐state. American Journal of sociology, 103(1), pp. 144-181. ROBERTSON, R., 1992. Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage. ROBINSON, W.I., 1996. Globalization, the world system, and “democracy promotion” in US foreign policy. Theory and Society, 25(5), pp. 615-665. SCHOLTE, J.A., 1997. Global capitalism and the state. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), , pp. 427-452. SCHOLTE, J.A., 2014. Reinventing global democracy. European Journal of International Relations, 20(1), pp. 3-28. TORFASON, M.T. and INGRAM, P., 2010. The Global Rise of Democracy A Network Account. American Sociological Review, 75(3), pp. 355-377. WALLERSTEIN, I., 2000. Globalization or the age of transition. International Sociology, 15(2), pp. 251-267. WODAK, R., 2010. The glocalization of politics in television: Fiction or reality? European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(1), pp. 43-62.   Is globalization spreading democracy? The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2015 available at http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2015