[Nettime-bold] Globalism vs. Democracy: An Authoritative View

["Kermit Snelson" <ksnelson@subjectivity.com>]

Democrats without Democracy

The current issue of the American political journal "The National Interest"
(Fall 2001, No. 65) contains an article "Can Democracy Survive
Globalization?" by Ralf Dahrendorf, a British peer and Director of the
London School of Economics from 1974-1984.  Lord Dahrendorf is also an
eminent and prolific sociologist who identifies himself with the school of
the late British philosopher Karl Popper.

Dahrendorf argues that parliamentary democracy today is in grave danger, to
the point that "we will have to rethink the very constitution of liberty."
The first danger is that existing democratic institutions are being ignored
or bypassed, not only by politicians but also by the citizenry.  Politicians
such as Italy's Berlusconi and Britain's Blair increasingly resort to a
media-driven "anti-politics" that consists, in effect, of ephemeral
marketing campaigns rather than reasoned, extended deliberation.  As a
result, parliaments are losing their "pivotal role."  On the other hand the
citizens themselves, out of increasing cynicism and apathy, refuse to vote
or to exercise any of their other rights to free inquiry and expression that
democracy has provided them.  As a result, the people's views remain
uninformed and unexpressed:  "the voice of the people does not reach
decision-makers in any regular and constitutional way."  The result is "a
kind of creeping authoritarianism" inherent in a society like Germany's
Weimar Republic, a "democracy without democrats" that could likewise lead to
catastrophe.

The second danger to democracy, writes Dahrendorf, is "what is crudely
called globalization, that is, the emigration of important decisions to
spaces for which democratic processes and institutions do not exist."
Democracy cannot exist beyond the nation-state:  "The weakening of the
nation-state by a process of internationalization is by the same token a
weakening of democracy."  The experience of the European Union only proves
this rule.  Far from being a successful example of democracy beyond the
nation-state, "the decision-making process of the European Union is an
insult to democracy.... Far from being a successful step in the direction of
applying democracy beyond the nation-state, Europe proves that this is all
but impossible to achieve."

Outlining a possible defense against these two dangers, Dahrendorf first
stresses the necessity to defend the concept of the nation-state and
parliamentary democracy.  "First, it important to remember that the
nation-state is still the most important political space at the beginning of
the 21st century.  It may have lost some of its strength, but it remains the
inclusive community for most people.  For those who have just escaped from
imperial domination, like the formerly Soviet-ruled countries of central and
eastern Europe, the nation-state embodies not just sovereignty, but
freedom.... This means that parliamentary democracy is not a spent force.
It has to be, and it can be, defended against all pressures."

The more difficult task, writes Dahrendorf, is "giving people a voice in
matters that are decided beyond the nation-state.  Unfortunately, this will
have to remain unresolved.  For some time to come, we shall live with a
confused and uncomfortable mix of highly imperfect attempts to democratize
global decision-making."  Dahrendorf believes that the current constellation
of NGOs, "Internet debates" and "Seattle and all that" comprises no real
answer: it represents a "politics of cultural despair" and a "cacophony" to
which it is impossible to give "true democratic shape."  But Dahrendorf does
see hope:  "If we cannot have world or even European democracy, at least we
can have democrats:  people who are conscious of their rights as citizens,
and take seriously the responsibility actively to defend them.  Citizens do
not just let things happen.  They speak up, and even if they are not always
heard, their voices still matter.  They use all non-violent means to check
the untrammeled exercise of power.  They support visible initiatives, such
as the counter-World Forum at Porto Alegre earlier this year.  They form an
invisible network of defenders of freedom that, in principle, spreads all
over the world.  Democrats without democracy offer a more hopeful prospect
than the reverse."

Kermit Snelson




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold