POLITICAL GLOBALIZATION: Democratic v Undemocratic Governments
Social and cultural globalization, as well as political globalization involves the spread of ideas (particularly democratic ideas) , information, images and people. In this section we are primarily concerned with the movement of political ideas such as democracy and human rights and the diffusion of scientific knowledge especially in the fields of technology and communications---and with its impact on society and culture on a global scale. One of the goals of globalization, after all, is to genuinely have an internationalized civil society made up of free citizens from many different countries.Before proceeding any further, it would be useful at this point to examine the most basic ways of classifying governments as democratic or non-democratic. According to political scientist Ellen Grigsby, democratic governments are ones in which people and the government are connected : they are self-governing and shape inputs because people have the freedom to put ideas into government and to shape the government through elections, contacting officials etc. They also affect the output (laws and policies) of their government.On the other hand, non-democratic government is government in which people are not self-governing and do not influence inputs or outputs. Non-democratic governments deny real participation to their peoples. True, they may mobilize people people to act in certain ways, such as attending government rallies, but this should not be confused with genuine political participation. Non-democratic governments also suppress various groups within society. Nor are their laws and policies reflections of popularly defined and articulated interests. In terms of leadership, the leader is often drawn from a powerful family, party or social sector such as the military--- and is concentrated in a single individual. Lastly, undemocratic governments have unclear lines of succession.Worldwide, non-democratic governments are far more numerous than democratic ones. Indeed, fewer than 30% of the world's governments that have enjoyed independence over the last thirty years are conspicuously democratic.Thinking Point: Since the United Nations General Assembly is based on a one nation, one vote basis, yet most of the nations have undemocratic governments, to what extent should the USA pay attention to their opinions on global issues?
Yet democracy and freedom are on the upswing since the mid 1980s. In the 1990s, the end of the Cold War has put pressure on Less Developed Countries (LDCs) to shift away from authoritarian and military regimes and towards democracy, with an elected leadership, a multi-party system and open, pluralist politics. This pressure has come externally from the international financial community and EDCs and internally from internal groups which are mobilizing to demand their political rights.The spread of democratization has been most dramatic in Latin America. In 2000, every country in the Western Hemisphere, except Cuba, had an electoral democracy, although during the 1990s, some countries such as Brazil and Peru did suffer some political decay. By 1999, Freedom House, a non profit organization that monitors political rights and civil liberties around the world, classified 23 of the Latin
American countries as fully free democracies.
The countries of sub-Saharan Africa though lagging far behind , have had their hightest level of democratization since independence in the 1960s. Freedom House classifies 9 of the 53 countries (17%) as "free" and 21 (40%) as "partly free", with 23 (43%) as"not free".In Asia, the record of democratization is mixed./ China, Cambodia, Myanmar, North Korea and Vietnam are classified as "not free". Six more (including Bangladesh,Indonesia, Malyasia and Pakistan are only "partly free' . India remains the world's largest democracy, although it could face political decay if it is wracked by parliamentary deadlock, violence and assassination.
Electoral democracies are also functioning in Mongolia, the Phillipines and the Asian NIC ( Newly Industrialized Countries) of Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and South Korea even though some are still fragile. In the Middle east, many countries have made efforts to introduce some elements of democratic politics. Some states now elect their political leadership ( eg. Egypt, Iran and Morocco), while others at least have a democratically elected legislature (eg. Jordan.).Nevertheless, democratic structures are not deeply entrenched and Freedom House does not classify any of these statees as electoral democracies. When democratic processes threaten the ruling elites, democracy suffers as these elites implement nondemocratic procedures to stay in power . This has occurred in Algeria , once held out as a model for Arab countries . There , democracy was derailed in 1992 by a military takeover after Islamist victories in the national elections. Also, Yemen's experiment with democratization collapsed in 1994 when the South tried to secede from Yemen and civil war flared. Hence, Freedom House (1999) only counts Jordan, Kuwait and Morocco as "partly free", while fourteen others are deemed to be "not free
Thinking Point: Did the Bush Administration, in its rush to democratize the Mid-East, make a mistake in allowing terror groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, which did not renounce violence or disarm their militias, to complete in elections? In 2006, for instance, Hamas won a majority of the vote in the Palestinian territories and as of 2007, Hezbollah wants more seats in any Lebanese government and attempted to bring down the elected government.
Click "Back" to go back NEXT PAGE.
