What is the relation between politics and globalization? - LEE JUNGHU

Summary

This week's leading texts by Delanti and Rumford often begin by directly refuting the misconception we have about globalization, namely the conventional wisdom that "if globalization progresses, the state will lose its power and borders will disappear." The authors explain that political globalization does not simply mean the decline of a country, but that it is a complex process in which three forces - global geopolitics, global normative culture, and polycentric networks - tug at each other tightly. First of all, what is interesting is that from a geopolitical point of view, the nation-state model has spread more around the world since the Cold War. It is true that the power of the West has become stronger, but it is not a world dominated by the United States alone, and the power struggle between countries is still fierce. One more unique layer is added to this, which is the "global normative culture" such as human rights and environmental issues. This culture creates a global standard that countries cannot carelessly do, placing more importance on individual human rights than on the sovereignty of individual countries. In conclusion, the authors argue that the state is not disappearing, but is transforming as it becomes "transnationalized." Like the European Union, countries share sovereignty and strengthen their functions, but in the process, the strong link between the "people" and the "state" weakens. The explanation that borders are also not being erased from the map, but are being scattered throughout society, such as airports, checkpoints, and digital surveillance networks, suggests that globalization is opening us up a much more complex and conflicting political space, not a "one unified world."

Interesting points

The most refreshing thing that came to me while reading this text was the mention of the "dark side of global civil society." Honestly, when it comes to "global civil society" or "NGO," I have only thought of positive images of solidarity across borders and fighting for peace and human rights. However, the authors pointed out that the very "connectivity" and "post-territoriality" are equally useful tools for terrorists, drug cartels, and gangsters. The paradox that the more autonomy a civil society has beyond the control of the state, the stronger the forces that penetrate the gap, the more powerful it becomes, made it impossible to see "globalization from below" unconditionally romantic. Another part that made me clap my knees was the analysis that globalization separates the state and the nation. In the news these days, I often wondered, "Why is nationalism suddenly popping up in the era of globalization?" Looking at the rise of Brexit or far-right populism in the news, the reason became clear through this article. The country quickly adapts to the global market and legal system to survive and becomes "transnational," and in the process, the public, who felt alienated, will hide back into the old fence of "ethnicity." Lastly, Balibar's claim that borders are not only at the end of the territory, but are "dispersed" everywhere in our daily lives, was also creepy and realistic.

Question and Discussion

The biggest concern I can't get out of my head after reading this is the "democratic legitimacy of unelected global power" issue. The authors state that global civil society and international norms keep national power in check and open new political spaces. But at the same time, they point out that they are "lack accountability and democratic credentials" and are merely groups that have appointed themselves as representatives. That's where the dilemma arises: We can vote to elect our government and hold them accountable. But no global NGO, international organization, or multinational network has ever been chosen by our vote. So when a country loses power and these transnational networks establish important "gaming laws," such as human rights standards and environmental regulations, can we really call them democratic? If "democracy" means members' right to self-determination, then when external global norms take precedence over the consensus of individual national citizens (even if they are good values like "human rights"), we want to have a deep discussion with our colleagues in class about whether we should see it as an infringement of democratic sovereignty or accept it as a new extension of modern democracy.