Political globalization

1.     Summary of “political globalization”

 The concept of globalization involves that increasing of interconnected organization of space and changing multidimensional. In this description, political globalization is generally understood to as a tension between three processes which interact to produce the complex field of global politics: global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric networks.

 These days, democracy can be thought as ‘The world new order’ but it doesn’t mean that the end of ideology. Definitely, democracy is widely spread in the world and even the countries which do not have democratic government have some systems of democracy. After the collapse of Soviet Union, democracy is understood that the final ideology and it seems America is the one who laughs last. But democracy is just the result which is chosen by our world in this period. Liberal democracy makes the ideology more various, if anything.

 With the development of communication technology, globalization is rapidly processed and the connectivity of nation-state conspicuously is increased. In this process, nations necessarily make a system for normative culture or universal rules. So normative culture is the result of political globalization. UN is the most classic example for political globalization. For making consensus, members of UN communicate together. This does not interpret as westernization. It is progress for make decision for universal rules and world debate. Nation-state is still important factors but becoming to globally connected world, each states cannot exist independent anymore. It is impossible to make consensus if each nations just considers for their benefit. So political globalization is integral factor when we treat about globalization.

 So this process of globalization, polycentric network is created naturally and political globalization stably arrange it. Communication is the most important virtue for humanity. Mankind has been stronger with expanding community and nowadays we can communication with all over the world. Each individual has to noticed that he or she is not just citizen of nation-state but also citizen of global world. In the same vein, members of global society must show effort for make better world.

2.     What was interesting? / What did you learn?

 It is interesting that the author argued, ‘the flood tide of democracy’ is not meaning about ‘End of ideology’. Author thought, the democratic system makes more various ideology. This is deeply impressive for me because I thought like ‘this is period of democracy because other ideologies are disappeared’. But when I read this script, I regarded that democracy is not just understood by ideology. That’s a kind of system and it can contribute to develop society even it is not democratic society. Actually, every nation-state has its own government system and ideology. In these days, may be democracy is concept which more close to system than ideology. Democratic system just makes possible that whole members of society can concern their society’s issue and participate to make consensus. This make society’s values various, not narrow. In some ways, I think that essentially democratic system is the only way to make community’s consensus without fear or favour. In ancient society, it was difficult to make consensus by whole member’s participation so there was other government systems but nowadays it become possible with development of technology(In fact, there was some democratic system in ancient age like Athens’ ‘demoskratia’). Democracy is based on participation by society members. It is not matter that the society is just small town or whole global world. It is just a way to make a consensus by communication. So, in this context, I feel more sense of responsibility for become a citizen of global world. Actually, there already exist the polycentric network and we are connected other nation’s influence but I think many people, myself included don’t care enough about global discussion.

3.     Discussion point

 My discussion point of this section is ‘Does the present democratic system sufficiently reflect idea of majority?’.

 After the U.S presidential election in this month, I have doubt ‘Is the result truly reflect majority of citizen?’ U.S presidential election is the way of winner-take-all system. Citizens vote to their representative and the result is decided by total of opinions of house members. I am not talking about the result election is right or wrong. But I think U.S is nation that has the most various races and culture. So I believe the way of U.S.A ’s making decision can be a model of global discussion. As mentioned before, the U.S presidential election is the result of a number of people who have various culture and race. Then, there are much different views than small nation in geopolitical view. So it is much difficult to collect meaning of people. And it is more difficult at making international consensus. Because of these factors I wonder what is the most impartial way to make decision of enormous number of people. As I said democracy is chosen this period because it seems pretty rational. And it works by collecting people’s opinion. Election is the typical process of it. So I want to discuss about impartiality of present democratic system and idea about any better alternative system. Also, I wonder classmate’s idea about it.