Political globalization

1. Summary.

Political globalization has been discussed in the many literature. There has been created many political discussion by the development of transnational networks and processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Although there have been a negative side of globalization represented as a loss of autonomy and fragmentation of the world, Political globalization opened new emancipatory possibilities. Political globalization can be understood as a tension between three processes such as global geopolitics, global normative culture, and polycentric networks.

In the literature ‘the end of history’, Hukuyama insisted that there is no more efficient way than liberal democracy. After the long lasting war between democracy and communism, Liberal democracy finally won, so, the war of ideology was ended. However, unlike the foresight of Fukuyama, spreading of liberal democracy did not lead to the end of ideology but to the proliferation of more different kinds of ideology. The globalization of democratic politics has been the basis of new world order that has been associated with the worldwide supremacy lead by United States. Despite of the United States as a global power, global geopolitics does not mean a western world order. The United States will be no longer the global supremacy and US will be countlessly challenged by the many other states power. It is the first dimension of political globalization: global geopolitics. Secondly, Global normative culture is independent of global geopolitics and is largely legal but diffused in global political communication. One of the main normative culture is human right and environmental concerns such as sustainable development. Historically, the sovereignty of state has been challenged by the rights of the individual. Once state was the main component of global norms but today a global normative culture has come into existence beyond the state system and exists in a relation of tension with states. So, the global normative culture provides normative reference for states and an orientation for political actors. Globalization needs the global players such as powerful state to implement a global geopolitics. But there is another side of globalization that is less related to states and not reducible to global normative culture. That is called polycentric networks which is a kind of nonterritorial politics and cannot be reduced to a single center. These process of political globalization are associated with networks and flows, and communication. It denote new relationship between the individual, state and society. In this sense, the concept of civil society is much contested and for present purposes it simply refers to their political domain between the state and the market. In the world, states are still powerful actors but it exist in a more globally connected world which they cannot totally control. With the transition from a world economy dominated by national economies to a global economy, a new economic forces come into play challenging the power of the nation-state such as firms. So the result is that states have to share their sovereignty with other global players such as non-governmental actors leading to multi-governance. The European Union possesses a large number of independent regulatory authorities upon the state. States have been always had their regulatory functions but today, these regulatory functions are being performed at a transnational level through cooperation with other states. Like EU, throughout Asia, Africa, Central and South America, nation-states are on the whole the main expressions of political mobilization and identity. And also a communication is central to politics. Nation-states have been based on centralized systems of communication more multidimentionally.
By communication between domestic and international universality, many global players are able to discuss about global issues. It is mainly associated with the global normative cultures. And also there is much more importance on civil society. The importance of global civil society implies the resistance to the hegemony of US or capitalism represented by US.

2. Concerns and interesting things about the article.

By the article, in terms of global politics, there are much more complex ways to interpret present globalized world than I thought before. Like the Fukuyama insisted, after the communism collapsed, Democracy seems to be the only ideology the world will follow. But as the world become more and more globalized, the border of state and culture, economy and even politics become vague. In the article, the author said we have to point out the complex relationships between autonomy and fragmentation. The nation-state is an important factor for political autonomy through the sovereignty of peoplehood. And democracy is also an important part in a world community of nation-states. Democracy is worldwidely desired and very essential to the nation-state. There always occurred the division or inequality of actors by economical or political class under democratic system. So I concerned about another domination system caused by the high degree of democracy. By political globalization, there arose many nation-state system. And the nation-state rules or has a control over the state and world. Maybe I think these phenomenon may cause the another ruling system over the world. Then finally, the globalized world may retreat to one-dimentional dominance system under the nation-state ruling system.

3. Discussion point

My discussion point is about the civil society. We cannot ignore the hegemony of governmental system. The author insisted that to resist against the hegemony of United States or Democracy, the role of civil society is very important. But I have one question about this idea. That idea is quite proper opinion, I think. But, to give a civil society a power to resist against the hegemony, there will be highly needed to be united or integrated civil society interest. If there are no singly consensus idea of civil society, if there are many civil society fighting each other to assert their own interest, then I think it will be more and more difficult to resist the hegemony of governmental level. Surely there are many well-organized civil societies. However each civil societies have a different, various interests. In these sense, I wonder if the governmental system afraid of the civil society.