Democratic Globalization

Democratic globalization is the idea that all humans share a common interest and should have a common say in the future development of humanity. Its supporters counterpose democratic globalization to existing globalization, which they claim reflects the interests of state, corporate, and financial elites. These groups control policy in existing global institutions and the world's 200 or so states. Instead, supporters of democratic globalization insist on globalization “from below” rather than “from above.”

Few human communities in history have ever grown up in isolation from one another. In this sense globalization is not new. But the paradox of capitalism's political economy is that as it has developed in the last five centuries the world has been brought closer together in some ways but become more divided in others. The end of the Cold War in 198991 seemed to suggest that this had changed. Market capitalism had triumphed. The next years saw a huge [Page 490]wave of globalization talk and claims of a qualitative shift in global relations. Critics saw the euphoria of this “globo-babble” as the equivalent in ideas of the “irrational exuberance” that seemed to characterize markets at this time. It served to allow corporate and financial interests to try to remold the economy more in their favor.

“Free Market Fundamentalism”

Free market and neoliberal economists argue that markets are welfare enhancing and work best when they are free. They deny that there are serious tradeoffs or choices and argue that if some gain more this is of little consequence. Everyone can hope to gain something through the trickle-down effects of the integration of global markets. These ideas were embodied in the politics of the Washington Consensus and the policies of the U.S. government abroad, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and, from 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO). “Free market fundamentalism,” as its critics call it, has been invested with a moral character, part of the struggle between good and evil. These ideas are propagandized, advised, and even imposed on many parts of the world as part of the conditionality of Western aid.

Such ideas always had their critics but it was not until November 1999 when a meeting of the WTO in Seattle met with huge protests that this opposition found its real voice. Described variously as the antiglobalization movement, the alter-globalization movement, or the anticapitalist movement, it developed into an alliance of groups with varied (and sometimes competing) perspectives. They shared a common skepticism about the claims made for globalization and the trustworthiness of the forces behind it. This informal alliance is often chaotic. Nevertheless it has sustained campaigns around the globe and regular meetings of a World Social Forum, initially at Porte Allegre in Brazil but later at changing locations. The movement also began to develop into an anti-war movement opposing U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and threats elsewhere.

This movement for democratic globalization was immediately attacked as naive, utopian, and even irresponsible. But it was able to mobilize considerable pressure and arguments in its favor. It was helped by internal critiques of earlier globalization talk and not least by the work of the leading economist Joseph Stiglitz. It also found support from the International Labour Organization's World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization (2001–04), which concluded that “seen through the eyes of the vast majority of women and men, globalization has not met their simple and legitimate aspirations for decent jobs and a better future for their children.”

...