index of papers

Citizenship, Democracy and Globalization

Margaret A. McLaren
Rollins College, U.S.A.

In the spring of 2006 I read in my local paper, the Orlando Sentinel, that according to a United Nations survey, 65% of the people surveyed in Peru said they did not know what democracy was. This made me think about the various ways that democracy is used in public discourse. In the current Bush era, democracy has been used as a weapon, as an excuse, as a justification for military intervention. In spite of this, the values at the heart of democracy—equality and liberty -–strike me as important cornerstones of a political system. As I reflected further about the Peruvian survey response, I was not at all surprised that over half of the respondents replied that they did not know what democracy was, because the more I thought about it, the more confused I became. This paper is a first attempt to think through some of the complicated and difficult questions surrounding citizenship and democracy in the context of globalization.

In the context of globalization questions about citizenship and democracy become even more pressing. This paper examines three models of democracy: imperialist democracy such as that imposed on other countries through force or economic sanctions, representative democracy, where there is popular support for democracy, and the political structure is committed to egalitarian representation, and economic democracy, in cases where the focus shifts from political and legal representation to issues of economic justice. Given the differences in these various models of democracy it is not too surprising that the respondents to the survey discussed above claimed to not know what democracy is; I suggest that this ”confusion” results from the multifarious forms that democracy takes, and the entwining of the political, legal and economic spheres. Imperialist democracy imports the values of capitalism through its neo-liberal agenda. Representative democracy advocates egalitarian values, but if it focuses too much on legal equality and political representation it may be unable to fulfill its own promise of equality, as those who are poor, illiterate and uneducated cannot exercise their full political and legal rights. Finally, economic democracy is primarily concerned with the just distribution of resources.

Democracy

We are all too familiar with ”forced democracy” or imperialist democracy. Currently, the US occupation of Iraq exemplifies this model. A current government or leader is removed by military force from outside the country, then the new government is chosen through an election, but there is still a military presence to ensure that the elections are democratic. A second more insidious form of imperialist democracy results from demands made by global economic institutions for a country to change its institutions, practices and policies in order to receive financial aid. Both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) attach certain conditions to the loans that they provide. In order to receive loans, countries must agree to adopt structural adjustment policies. Structural adjustment policies encourage privatization of government-owned enterprises and government-provided services, cuts in government spending, increasing taxes, liberalizing trade and investment rules, raising interest rates, orienting economies to provide exports, charging user fees for health care and education and eliminating subsidies on consumer items such as food, fuel, and medicines. Structural adjustment policies promote a neo-liberal agenda with their emphasis on privatization and away from public goods. Furthermore the policies help multinationals gain a foothold by undermining a country’s current infrastructure; for example, after they are privatized state owned enterprises are often sold to multinationals. Although the IMF is an international financial institution, voting is weighted according to size of contribution and the United States is the largest shareholder, with more than 17% of the votes. Thus the biases and tendencies of the US are reflected in the practices and policies of the IMF and the World Bank, e.g., individualism, increasing privatization of businesses and services, and neo-liberal capitalism. So, the United States as a large and powerful democratic country is forcing its neo-liberal agenda on other countries through its key role in international financial institutions. But does this mean that democracy and neo-liberalism have some intrinsic connection?

Democracy as a political institution (representative democracy) advocates transparency, due process, equality, civil rights, and equal representation in politics. Representative democracy takes tolerance as one of its basic tenets and embraces pluralism. Representative democracy is closely aligned with liberalism and is characterized by a split between public and private, the separation of church and state, the rule of law, the priority of right over good, and an emphasis on the individual. A democratic framework promotes liberal values and prizes fairness, equality and justice. It is hard to object to these laudable values, and I do not, in principle object to them. But as many theorists have pointed out, the ideal of equality is a goal yet to be reached. Democracy is only truly representative when those disenfranchised achieve full recognition and rights as citizens. In the United States this process of inclusion has been slow historically and still continues to this day, with current debates in Congress about extending full civil rights to lesbians and gay men. Even in an inclusive democracy, where all members have full rights as citizens, the voices and perspectives of minorities may not be equally represented in a system where ”majority rules.” Despite its flaws, representative democracy at least holds the promise of ”liberty and justice for all.” For some countries, such as Burma, free and fair elections and individual liberties would be a great improvement over the current situation. Democracy as a political system could be compatible with a variety of economic systems, but in the US it is coupled with free market capitalism. We know that capitalism concentrates power and wealth into the hands of the few, while the majority struggles to make ends meet. So, democracy and capitalism appear to be at odds. Liberal welfare states try to mitigate the increasing gap between rich and poor with social services and benefits. But in order for democracy to live up to its aims, the commitment to fairness, equality and justice must permeate the economic sphere as well as the legal and political spheres.

Within particular nation-states economic democracy might take the form of agriculture co-operatives, as well as small family farms, nationalized health care, free education, and support for labor issues and struggles. Yet, the World Bank, the IMF, and international trade agreements undermine support for these alternatives at the global level. Not only do these international financial institutions undermine just and fair economic systems within countries, they also impact on the political aspect of democracy. Leonor Briones, President of the Freedom from Debt Coalition in the Philippines says, ”The very logic and framework of structural adjustment policies require the repression of democratic rights. This is because these policies demand drastic fiscal, monetary, and economic measures which cannot help but raise very strong reactions from the public. And such reactions have to be repressed. This is a joint production of the international finance community with the cooperation of local elites and leaders in our own country.” The relationship between the possibility for a fair and just economic system within a country depends upon the realization of a fair and just economic system globally; they are inextricably tied together.

Citizenship

Under the various aspects of democracy that I have discussed different versions of citizenship become salient. As a member of an imperialist democratic country, imposing its might to make right, the obligation of the ”good” citizen might be an uncritical patriotism (if citizenship means allegiance or loyalty to one’s nation state). The post-9/11 political climate in the US exemplifies this sort of embracing of both the imperialist democratic approach and uncritical patriotism. I probably do not need to remind anyone that Bush justified his invasion of Iraq by invoking freedom, justice and the spread of democracy, meanwhile those who exercised their Constitutional rights in the US to protest the war or speak out about it were labeled unpatriotic, and some civil liberties were revoked. Obviously, the notion of citizenship as agreement with one’s government’s actions and policies is not one that is widely shared, despite the post-9/11 backlash.

The obligations and responsibilities of citizenship in a representative democracy might include defending fair and open political and legal procedures and institutions, supporting unbiased media, advocating civil rights for all, and protecting civil liberties such as freedom of speech, association and religion. Of course, citizens must actively engage in the political process at every level, by voting in national and local elections, by being aware of current legislation, and by taking an active interest in foreign policy as well as domestic policy. Commitment to representative democracy implies that citizens continue to work for the enfranchisement of all, with civil rights granted equally to all. However, as mentioned above, democracy seems unable to fulfill its own goals unless it deals with economic inequality; the issue of economics straddles the national and the global. Can the idea of citizenship, historically tied the idea of the nation-state, apply also to the world?

The issue of world citizenship also referred to as ”cosmopolitan citizenship” or ”cosmopolitanism” currently enjoys a renaissance in philosophical discussion. This idea has a long philosophical history beginning with the Cynics and the Stoics, and continuing through the unlikely trajectory of Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Jacques Derrida, Martha Nussbaum and Kwame Anthony Appiah, as well as others. Diogenes Laertius (Diogenes the Cynic) quite famously stated, ”I am a citizen of the world.” Nussbaum in her essay ”Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” draws out this claim to mean that citizens of the world recognize a common humanity and from this recognition of a common humanity follows a moral obligation to help others. She argues that the borders and boundaries of one’s nation-state ought not limit the scope of moral concern, ergo cosmopolitanism trumps patriotism. I am in partial agreement with her conclusion, but not her reasoning. Nussbaum articulates cosmopolitanism as an Enlightenment belief in universals, and this involves viewing one’s particularities as merely accidents of birth. I believe that cosmopolitanism must recognize differences as well as commonalities among people, and this includes differences of power and privilege as well as cultural, ethnic and religious differences. Global issues must concern everyone, along with national and local issues. Indeed, it is hard to completely separate national and global issues given that most international bodies like the United Nations and the IMF are composed of member nations. And international human rights documents such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights depend on countries to adopt and ascribe to these international standards. World citizenship involves actively influencing one’s own nations representatives to international bodies to secure the rights of those in other countries. Beyond that it involves transnational political influence by making your voice heard about international policies and agreements that have a negative impact. One venue for this is the international protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the meetings at the World Social Forum.

Protests within countries also send powerful messages about the effects of free trade and the IMF. Currently, there are anti-US and anti-free trade protests in Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has proposed an alternative to the US backed free trade agreement; his ”Petro-america” initiative sells fuel on preferential terms to other countries in South America to promote regional integration and development. In Peru protestors blocked the tracks of the tourist train to Machu Picchu (the train company PeruRail is owned by Bermuda based Orient Express Hotels Ltd.). Peasant farmers blockaded the train tracks because they fear they will not be able to compete with subsidized US agricultural products if the free trade agreement goes through. Clearly, local action like that of the farmers in Peru sends a message both nationally and internationally. Moreover, popular opinion in Peru agrees with the anti-free trade stance, the new Congress poised to take office July 28, is strongly against the free trade agreement.

Maybe cosmopolitan citizenship is not the recognition of the universal but the active struggle against being subsumed by it. The actions of the Peruvian farmers connect their particular, local concerns with international policies and they exercised their right to elect a government that is sympathetic to their concerns and their right to protest to call international attention to this issue.

In light of this, it is truly surprising that 65% of the respondents to the United Nations survey in Peru stated they did not know what democracy was. Maybe the survey should measure responses keeping in mind the philosophical distinction between knowing (knowing that) and doing (knowing how).

NOTES

”Twenty Questions on the IMF,” Robert Weissman in Democratizing the GlobalEconomy ed. Kevin Danaher, p 85 (Common courage Press: Philadelphia , 2001).

Here I mean that I agree with the democratic values of fairness, equality and justice. I have some reservations about liberalism’s emphasis on the individual, the public/private split and the priority of the right over the good.

Quoted in Democratizing the Global Economy, p. 98.

See for example the essays in For Love of Country? Ed. Joshua Cohen, (Beacon Press: Boston , 2002), see also Cosmopolitanism, Kwame Anthony Appiah ( New York : Norton, 2006).

Associated Press, June 2006

To leave comments on this paper: click here.

To read comments already contributed: click here.

index of papers