Dealing with Globalization

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

At a recent conference hosted by [i]La Jornada Maya[/i] in which I participated with five retired Mexican diplomats I was asked what is the greatest challenge facing humanity.

My response: dealing with globalization in all of its manifestations.

Most governments are not dealing too well with globalization.

They are either focusing on micro-economic development at the expense of large numbers of their populations who are being left behind, or they are espousing authoritarian and populist nationalisms that would revert to nineteenth and twentieth century concepts of nationalism despite today’s technological realities.

Governments have not kept up with technology and its impact on global governance. Nor do most politicians appear to understand the interplay between both.

First of all, technology is here to stay. One cannot wish it away. One must deal with it.

And governments must legislate so that the legal system can deal effectively and in a modern and productive way with rapidly changing and evolving technologies. It appears that, thus far, governments and legal systems have not yet caught up with technological change, nor have most lawmakers developed the necessary knowledge with which to deal with the vast changes in our technological eco-system.

As well, the tremendous shift in jobs from one region to another, the elimination of entire sectors of jobs, and the need for the private sector and governments to work together has never been more necessary. The ability to shift billions of dollars at the throw of a switch and the ubiquitous use of cybercurrencies have placed control over international financial flows beyond the reach of governments.

Yet, national governments continue to operate at national levels with all of the constraints that this entails.

The private sector works globally with little regard for national frontiers. Multinational companies and private international financial institutions go where profitability is greatest. They shift jobs and investments with little or no concern for how this impacts on the individuals concerned.

And therein lies the challenge.

The nation state is the product of the Congress of Vienna of 1815, when national sovereignty was enshrined in international law and in the minds of most people. Nationalism ensured that governance was exclusive to the local cultural and ethnic group. Nationalism provided the space for institutions of governance capable of meeting the needs of its citizens.
It also led to war – two global wars and scores of smaller yet bloody wars that created resentments that have endured over the years and that, today, have resulted in the forced migration of millions of refugees with all of the political, social, and economic challenges that this has produced.

Today, nation states continue to govern, pass and enforce laws, and regulate the economic, financial, and communications instruments that govern our lives.

But, can this be sustained?

Can the nation state regulate the global economy and mitigate its effects on its particular economy?

That is the question leaders today have to address.

Some are addressing it by supporting the efforts to globalize political management to meet the economic and communications globalization that has already made its impact on the global polity. These are leaders who see a multilateral approach to the challenges we all face – from the mass migration of refugees to the objective of global free and fair trade to create wealth, from the need to address climate change to that of ensuring that the flows of investments contribute to the overall welfare of all global citizens and not just to a few.

Others are focusing on the nationalism that was ubiquitous in during the last century and that is making a comeback as those who feel left behind by globalization vent their frustrations and follow leaders who meld extreme nationalism with divisive politics and hate for minorities and foreigners.

During the conference to which I referred at the beginning of this article someone asked why the European Union has been able to overcome the extreme nationalisms of the last century while Latin America has not been able to coalesce around a concept of unity that works.

I responded that Europe was born out of different languages and cultures but a similar set of post-war values. The original six members coalesced around the concepts of liberal democracy, a strong social safety net, an independent justice system in which all would be equal, and a rejection of the ideologies whose clashes had led to the Second World War.

Indeed, as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, newer members adhered to these principles and traded sovereignty for a collective management of the continent designed to eliminate frictions and increase prosperity through the free flow of capital and people and the development of a single market.

This worked until the mass migration of refugees fleeing violence and death in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and other African and Asian states, bringing an alien religion and culture to countries that were, on the whole, homogeneous. I say on the whole because France and the United Kingdom had always welcomed migrants from their colonies and had developed a multicultural and multiracial social base with significant Muslim populations.

However, states such as Hungary, Poland, Italy, and the Czech Republic began to reject these refugees and call for their countries to remain white Christian European states with none of the dislocation caused by mass immigration. And today they are evolving into authoritarian populist states underpinned by divisive policies and stuck in the rut of hating Muslim minorities.

This movement has spread to the United Kingdom, where BREXIT is the result of the rejection of many to the surrender of sovereignty to Brussels and the loss of the right of British citizens to set their own laws in their own parliament.

This breakdown in the value system that originally led to the creation of the European Union could well result in its demise.

Latin America, on the other hand, has benefited from a common language (except for Portuguese-speaking Brazil) but suffered from competing values systems. Nineteenth century concepts of national sovereignty broke up what had been the Spanish Empire and precluded these countries from coming together to work for the common good of all Latin American citizens in any effective way.

Latin America remains deeply divided through the adherence by its states and political parties to the antiquated European ideologies of the left and the right. They have failed to create the common value system required for successful and fruitful integration. This, together with concepts of national sovereignty, have precluded the region from establishing successful common markets and political parliaments capable of creating the hemispheric synergies that could produce real socio-economic and political results.

In addition, the fact that the Cold War between the United States and the then-Soviet Union was fought in many instances in this region led to the formation of dictatorships on both sides of the political spectrum whose vestiges have proven difficult to eradicate and that continue to survive in some states of the region.

In this century, antiquated concepts of sovereignty and nationalism work against the interests of most citizens who are competing in a globalized economy that no national government can control or direct.

The sad thing is that the very multilateral organizations that could provide good governance are themselves ineffective and under attack from many quarters. Yet, these institutions are only guilty of mismanagement by the very member states that mandate their activities.
The 21st century needs new forms of governance at the local, national regional, and global levels.

Leaders must propose realistic policies that not only address the concerns of the dispossessed but also offer realistic alternatives to current political policies. This entails creating the educational systems that prepare all citizens for a productive future in the new global economy.

It requires leaders who will create the alliances with universities and the private sector to create the systems and processes that will result in better trained citizens who can participate actively in the new economy.

It calls for the assurance that social safety nets will be in place to catch those who lose their jobs due to the impact of artificial intelligence or free trade in order to retrain themselves to remain active members of the economy and continue to have a stake in a democratic government.

Indeed, it requires an ability to negotiate free and fair-trade agreements that not only address the corporate needs of major companies but also the priorities of the average citizen.

It requires a media sector that holds political leaders’ feet to the fire to ensure that they provide the kind of leadership that can benefit all. A media sector that returns to the journalism of yesteryear when journalists reported and commented on the truth and did not perpetuate the lies and “alternative facts” typical of many of today’s media outlets and pundits.

It requires a political philosophy that does not equate less government with fewer services to citizens as good government but, rather, harnesses today’s and tomorrow’s technologies to provide better and more complete services to all more efficiently and effectively.

It requires a political class that views health and education not as costs but as investments in society’s ability to create and develop a more inclusive society.

Finally, voters need to educate themselves and develop the critical thinking necessary to make good electoral decisions. Responsible political leaders must meld personal ambition with a commitment to improve the lives of all citizens.

We all vote.

And we are all individually and collectively responsible for our decisions and their outcomes.

It is up to us to vote wisely and demand that our leaders not promise utopian panaceas but, rather, realistic and forward-looking policies aimed at taking citizens to a new level of prosperity and democracy.

[b][email protected][/b]