Democracy and Globalization
The term “Nation-State” has been mentioned several times in both our tutorials and lectures, and I never once pondered about the significance or meaning of it until we talked about democracy. Therein the term lies some sort of a paradox, which is quite an interesting concept to explore (it becomes even more interesting when you throw in globalization), and is what I will attempt to discuss in this post.
The Nation refers to the people and the State refers to the government. In the modern Nation-State, the consolidation of power occurs through the forge of a national identity, the creation of a common territory, language and religion. What happens (the way I understand it), is that through the creation of some common grounds, the people are made to believe that they share to a certain extent some similarities, and thus identify themselves as belonging to the same group or community. When this effect happens on a large enough scale, all, if not most, of the people will share that belief and what is formed is called the national identity. This national identity is a very powerful thing, as it unites people who come from such diverse backgrounds that they may otherwise never feel they have something in common with everyone else. It works almost like an invisible “glue”, gelling the people together.
When you have one entity with one common belief, it is much easier for the state to deal with. This is why it helps the consolidation of power in modern Nation-States. So, who created this amazing thing that brings people together? The national identity was basically created by the state for the people, rather than the people creating one for themselves in the ideal situation. The taking on of such an identity by the people forms something like a contract, that binds them to the governance of the state. And in such a case it is arguable if there is indeed democracy present in the system.
With globalization, the Nation-State suffers a national identity crisis. With the phrase “global citizens” being used more and more commonly, one starts to wonder to which land does one truly belong and what identity should one adopt. If a person is no longer just rooted to one nation, then it renders that particular national identity irrelevant, and hence that particular state to lose its recognition by the individual. Democracy, then, should it still occur at a nation-state level, or should it be on a global scale? Is it even possible for the latter to happen at all?
The latest American financial crisis has far and wide implications round the globe, but the decision as to whether or not the bailout plan would go through lies in the hands of that chosen few. Even though workers as far away as here in Singapore would have their jobs impacted by the decision, they have absolutely no say in the matter. Nearer to the heart of the problem, taxpayers had gone onto the streets to protest against having to fund the bailout, and as much as their voices were heard, the final call was still the top people’s to make.
I have read in a report commenting on how the US has always been trusty in resolving crises, but not doing as well in heading them off. The writer credited that to the slow pace of getting bills passed and issuing tax reliefs in the US, as they have to seek consensus of the congress, which usually runs into many problems and takes a long time. This was compared to the many other economies which are more efficient in heading off crises, simply by manipulating their taxes and charges in order to control demand and/or supply.
Here we see a possible situation whereby allowing many voices to be heard may not be an ideal means to an end. I am inclined to think that limited democracy is not always a bad thing after all, as sometimes there is simply no time to waste in getting the consensus of everyone, and the majority may not always have the knowledge to act in the most sensible way. That said, it is still important to value the views of the masses and educate them so they are aware of the choices that they can make.
