Globalisation and Democracy

Nikhil Madan. ISPP and CFW 2009

Two events have dominated world news on television lately - the global financial crisis and the USA presidential elections. While we do see the future US president affecting the rest of the world economic events, we don’t see the rest of the world affecting the outcome of the US presidential election. This may seem obvious enough. Of course, only the citizens of US have the right to elect their president, just like the democratic tradition in the US has been for 221 years. But then there is another side to it (which is also the main theme of this article). In the past century, there has been rapid globalisation. Events in one part of the world are significantly affecting people in other parts of the world. When the financial crisis that has its roots in the US engulfed the world, it was not only the people of US who suffered. Countries like Britain, which arranged for a financial bailout package of 90 billion dollars, have also suffered. These kind of global effects of domestic policies were not seen 221 years ago, when America elected its first president. Another staggering example of global effects of domestic policies is that of global warming. The largest ‘polluters’ are countries like the US and sufferers also include small countries like Bangladesh.(This, of course, is a result of our naturally globalised atmosphere). So, does the ideology of justice for all demand a change in the way democracies function in the world? The basic purpose and idea of a democracy suggest it does. What is the basic idea behind a democracy? It is that people choose the person or a group of people who’ll have great power to influence their lives. If one agrees with this, then there is no reason why the rest of the world should not play a role in deciding who will be the next president of the US.

What role should this be and how much power should the rest of world have in their hands in a different matter altogether. One may argue that the impact of the policies of the government of a country on the rest of the world is much less as compared to the domestic effect. I agree with the statement. But I also say that the effect is definitely there and more so in the case of a country like the US. I’m not saying that every citizen of the world should have a democratic power equal to that of the citizens of US. Differential power can be given to different parts of the world. Just like the various states in the US have a different number of electoral votes based on the population, the rest of the world may also have democratic power proportional to the estimated effect US has on it. Estimation of this ‘effect’ might be complex. But I’m optimistic that an agency like the UN can make a fairly accurate idea of that. Even if one is not sure that the figures are absolutely fair, one can start out with what one feels confident about on the basis of the available estimations and make changes in further elections.

This might seem like interference to some. I agree it is. But globalisation is itself a form of interference. Countries enjoy power to influence other countries. For example, lifting up of trade barriers in India gave the world greater power to influence India, which to quite an extent is ‘allowed interference’. Therefore, if our aim is to see a better world where governments are accountable to the people they affect, globalisation does demand a change in the global democratic order so that it is consistent with the idea of globalisation and more broadly the idea of justice. We can’t merge in a half hearted manner and see democracy and globalisation as two different phenomena independent of each other just because doing otherwise would be a big change from status quo and may take some of us out of our comfort zones. Globalisation should be seen in a broader sense where democracy is a component of it. The idea of global democracy should be seen as a form of positive interference just like globalisation is seen rather than a form of negative interference. To the extent we are one globe and one people, to that extent democracy should also be the institution of the globe rather than that of a nation.

Another criticism of this argument may be that if we are to truly globalize, why shouldn’t the international boundaries and governments be dissolved and we have one government for the entire world. I feel that can happen but only if and when the world agrees. The present form of globalisation, which deals dominantly with economic interaction between nations, was accepted by the world when it started and a more global form of democracy is, I feel, it’s natural requirement. But, on the other hand, social and cultural globalisation and regional globalisation ( I have coined this term for want of a better term), which refers to no international boundaries, are better left to the various societies, cultures and countries to decide. Many believe that social and cultural globalisation is happening to some extent as a result of economic interactions and I agree that it is the case. As the world agreed to merge economically, it may also gradually merge socially, culturally and regionally in a large and direct way. But whether the world should completely globalize is not an issue that one person should decide. Even if one does decide, there’s no way to achieve it forcefully. If and when it happens, we should accept it rather than try to force upon the issue at present. Forcing the world to open up may not be a good idea, just like forcing your immediate neighbours to keep their houses open for you all the time may not be a good idea. If (and if you want to) you a develop a good friendship, it’s fine. But till that voluntarily happens, it shouldn’t obviously be forced. As for the cultural and social divisions in the world, it is neither a universally good nor a bad phenomenon. It’s a matter of individual choice just like the choice to be friends with your neighbour. One can find people who dream of one society and one culture, but there are others, and I am in that list, who value diversity. As Amartya Sen points out somewhere in his book An Argumentative Indian, in our diversity lies our pride and we have reason to celebrate it. I agree. So, to make my point clearer, I would say that this article does not support or oppose globalisation. All it says that is now that the world has agreed to merge economically, it should also merge democratically in a roughly proportional magnitude. Whether the world should globalize further (quantitatively and qualitatively or both) is a different issue altogether and there is no single answer to it. That only time can tell us. And whatever happens (if it happens without force) would be the natural answer to this question.

Another point to be made is that this idea is not only about the US. While taking US as the example does seem to strengthen this argument because of US’s great influence on the world, I also think that this point is fairly relevant to other countries. For example, the South East Asian countries as a group have good reason to expand their democratic institutions because of large economic interaction between them. Moving a little away from effects of globalisation, it may even be a step forward in solving problems like across the border violence where domestic populations mightn’t have incentives enough to give importance to the problem. Therefore, the process may move gradually by initially involving small groups of countries which affect each other significantly and with time expanding the groups to involve other countries as well.

One may also say that the world doesn’t seem interested in voting for another country’s government and that the interest in US elections is an exception. While I agree that the interest in US elections by far exceeds that for any other country, I don’t agree that people will not be willing to vote for somebody who affects their lives. To doubt people’s willingness to vote for the rest of world’s governments is synonymous with denying or under-estimating the impact of globalisation. Of course, there may be pairs of countries who don’t interact and thus don’t impact each other much and might not care about what happens in another country. For that, they may not enter a treaty related to across the border voting. Globalisation of democracy may not be a black and white question for the world as a whole at all. It can be a quantitative phenomenon with increasing levels of presence in the world as and when the situation requires, just like globalisation is.

Yet another criticism of this idea may be that how can this happen when different countries are trade competitors under the current world order. The answer I have for this is that when international trade is supposed to be, by its very idea, mutually beneficial, this new democratic order can only help in preventing exploitation. It will be a check, for example, against beggar-thy-neighbour policies. Ultimately, if our universal goal is the betterment of the lives of individuals all over the world, then these checks are only for the better.

A natural question upon reading this article would be whether this can really happen? The answer is simply that I don’t know. I think it should happen but can’t say whether it will happen. Ideas of justice and fairness definitely call for it. Also, the universal ideals on which most of the governments of the world work on (at least on paper) are consistent with it. The idea and purpose of a democratic system are consistent with it. This is all that this article aims to convey. While I write this I assume that I have the right to talk about ‘what should be’ rather that ‘what will be’ like so much of the literature does(including economic literature). I agree there are practicality issues. For example, who’ll move first to expand their democratic system? But I feel this issue can be solved when the world sets its mind to it. Countries can move in pairs by simultaneously allowing across the border voting for each other. The same “who’ll move first” issue was also a potential problem with nuclear disarmament. While global nuclear disarmament is still an incomplete process, we have seen over time that many countries have found a way around that problem. Another problem maybe the handling of costs associated with so much democratic activity. This problem may be solved first by allowing a domestically elected body like the Indian parliament to represent India in the rest of the world elections. Moreover, the decreases in these costs in the past due to better technology suggests that involving the people directly in this process will become easier with time. My purpose to give these examples is not to convey that this is definitely happening. Instead it is only to convey that the process might not be as difficult and impossible as it seems. But for a more detailed analysis of the viability of the process, I would love to hear an expert’s views on the practicality of this idea, both now and in the future.