“What is the relation between politics and globalization?” -TRAN THUY NGA(짠 튀 응아)

1.Summary of the Reading 

In “Political Globalization,” Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford argue that the relationship between globalization and politics is complex, contested, and dynamic rather than a simple shift from national to global authority. They define globalization as the accelerated and interconnected organization of space and time across national borders, which has transformed how political power is exercised and distributed. Rather than viewing globalization as a process that causes the decline or disappearance of the nation-state, the authors contend that political globalization should be understood as a relational tension between expanding interconnectedness and persistent territorial authority. They identify three major forces shaping contemporary political globalization: global geopolitics, global normative culture, and polycentric networks.  

The first dimension, global geopolitics, refers to the rise of democratic nation-states as the dominant political form worldwide, particularly after the end of the Cold War. The spread of liberal democracy has given legitimacy to the nation-state model on a global scale. Because democracy is now widely recognized as the acceptable standard of governance, states gain prestige and influence by adopting democratic institutions. At the same time, the authors reject the claim that American power alone defines global order; rather than a Pax Americana or the “end of history,” they point to competing power centers such as China and the European Union. Global politics is therefore multipolar, and great power competition still matters significantly.  

The second dimension, global normative culture, highlights the emergence of shared moral and legal principles across borders. These norms include human rights, sustainable development, and the prioritization of individual personhood. Political legitimacy is increasingly judged according to these universal standards, which circulate through media, diplomacy, and international law. National governments must now address global audiences, as public discourse becomes transnational. In other words, a global public sphere shapes how states justify their political actions. This shift challenges strict state sovereignty by enabling individuals and groups to invoke global norms to advance rights claims.  

The third dimension focuses on polycentric networks that exist outside formal state structures. Global NGOs, activist coalitions, social movements, and even extremist groups have become political actors capable of influencing policy and public opinion. These networks collectively form global civil society, a sphere of political participation beyond territorial boundaries. Their horizontal structures allow actors from multiple locations to collaborate without centralized leadership. However, this expansion of political agency also introduces uncertainty and instability, since not all actors in global civil society promote democratic values.  

Delanty and Rumford continue by illustrating how these three forces reshape political systems in four major ways. First, the nation-state is being transformed rather than replaced. Economic globalization and international institutions require states to share authority, while global migration blurs the link between nationality and citizenship. In Europe, for instance, EU law supersedes national law in certain areas, leading to new struggles over sovereignty. Second, the public sphere is becoming increasingly global. Communication technologies enable citizens, activists, and governments to participate in international discourse, making political communication more open, but also more prone to polarization and misinformation. Third, civil society activism is globalizing, allowing new collaborations across borders that can challenge markets and governments. Yet these same dynamics also give rise to transnational crime networks and terrorist organizations. Fourth, globalization transforms the meaning of space and borders. Instead of disappearing in a “borderless world,” borders are rescaled and redeployed — for example, through expanded surveillance and digital monitoring of mobility.  

Ultimately, the authors argue that political globalization is driven by a tension between autonomy and fragmentation. Globalization can enhance democracy by increasing participation and accountability, but it can also shift power toward capitalism and away from citizens. In their conclusion, they stress that political conflict today is less about class struggle or state versus society, and more centered on issues of identity, community, and mobility. Political globalization expands the possibilities for political action, but it simultaneously creates new struggles over who has the right to govern and who belongs within political communities.  

2.New, Interesting

One of the most interesting aspects of this reading is the way it challenges the widely held assumption that globalization automatically weakens the nation-state. Before engaging with this text, I tended to believe that global markets, international institutions, and multinational corporations were steadily eroding state power. However, Delanty and Rumford present a more nuanced perspective, suggesting that states can actually become more influential in a globalized context because they strategically leverage global systems to reinforce their legitimacy and authority. The idea that globalization may strengthen rather than diminish national identity also helped me make sense of why nationalism has resurged so forcefully in many places around the world instead of gradually fading away as I once expected. This tension reveals that global interconnectedness does not dissolve the significance of the nation; instead, it can intensify the emotional and political attachment people feel toward national belonging.
I also found the concept of a “global public” especially compelling. The authors note that while the public sphere has historically been rooted in national political communities, it has increasingly expanded into a transnational discursive space. In the digital age, domestic political events — from protests to policy failures to rights violations — can instantly draw global attention through social media and online journalism. Legitimacy is no longer determined solely by citizens within national borders but also by global audiences, NGOs, and international media. This insight resonated with our lecture discussions about how global communication networks shape what becomes politically urgent, visible, or scandalous. It demonstrates that political authority now operates under a form of global surveillance in which states must constantly consider international judgment in their decision-making.

Another notable point is the authors’ recognition of what they describe as the “dark side” of global civil society. I have always associated civil society with positive democratic functions — advocacy, solidarity, and collective empowerment. The reading complicated this assumption by showing that the same global connectivity that enables progressive activism also facilitates violent extremist organizations, human trafficking networks, and transnational criminal groups. These actors take advantage of global mobility, finance, and technology to pursue destructive goals that undermine human security and democratic order. This realization provided a more critical understanding of why governments remain cautious about fully opening borders or relinquishing authority to global governance systems: security threats are also globalized.

Finally, I was particularly intrigued by the explanation of how globalization transforms the meaning and function of borders. Prior to this reading, I imagined globalization as reducing the relevance of national boundaries, but Delanty and Rumford convincingly argue that borders are not disappearing — they are being redrawn and redeployed. Borders today increasingly appear as digital infrastructures, biometric surveillance, and visa restrictions rather than solely as physical lines on a map. Airports become fortified border zones, while immigration enforcement extends deep into national territories. This helped me understand why border politics remains so emotionally charged worldwide: borders are no longer simply geographic markers but symbols of identity, security, privilege, and exclusion. Far from being erased, they have diversified — shaping who is recognized as belonging and who is kept out.

3.Questions, Concerns, and Discussion Angles

The reading raises a fundamental and unsettling question about the future of democracy: Can political globalization genuinely empower citizens when economic, digital, and technological power increasingly operates outside democratic control? Delanty and Rumford acknowledge the optimistic view that political globalization opens new avenues for participation through global civil society and transnational movements. However, they also caution that autonomy can gradually shift from democratically elected governments toward global capitalism, whose principal actors — multinational corporations, financial institutions, and tech platforms — remain largely unregulated and insulated from public accountability. If democracy depends on citizens’ ability to influence collective decisions, then what becomes of democratic agency when crucial choices regarding trade policy, data governance, or climate regulation are shaped by private actors who face no electoral oversight? This concern highlights a structural imbalance between political power (still anchored in states) and economic power (increasingly borderless), raising doubts about whether democratic systems can meaningfully govern global processes.

A related concern involves the reliance on global civil society as a counterweight to declining national-level authority. While NGOs, digital activists, and advocacy networks are often celebrated as champions of global justice, Delanty and Rumford remind us that these actors do not always represent the broader public and are themselves not democratically accountable. Moreover, access to the “global conversation” is highly uneven. Those with digital connectivity, higher education, or English language fluency are far more able to participate in international discourse than marginalized communities. This produces what some scholars call a global democratic deficit: the loudest voices appear global, while the voices that may need representation the most remain unheard. Expanding participation beyond borders is a valuable step, but participation alone does not guarantee equality.

Finally, the reading prompts a critical reflection on the content of global norms themselves. Although the authors argue that universal norms such as human rights and sustainability are not exclusively Western, many governments in the Global South continue to view these norms as externally imposed priorities that fail to consider historical inequalities or socio-cultural differences. When global normative culture pressures states to emulate standards connected to Euro-American models of governance, it risks producing a new form of cultural imperialism, cloaked in the language of moral progress. The key challenge, then, is to find a balance between maintaining universal commitments to human dignity while allowing diverse political communities the space to interpret and implement these commitments on their own terms.

Altogether, these tensions deepen my appreciation for Delanty and Rumford’s central argument: globalization is neither inherently democratizing nor uniformly destabilizing. Instead, it introduces new possibilities and new vulnerabilities at the same time. Political globalization can expand the scope of citizenship and accountability beyond the nation-state, but it can also disenfranchise citizens by shifting governance to inaccessible global institutions or market forces. How we navigate this contradiction may prove to be one of the most defining political challenges of the twenty-first century: Can democracy be scaled to match the realities of an increasingly globalized world without losing its foundational ideals of equality, participation, and collective self-determination?