Global Political Economy - Essay Example

Regardless of one’s political stance, when a thorough review is made of the global political system, only a handful of definitions are available withwhich to fully describe it. These definitions are as follows: imperialistic, polyarchic, or aristocratic. Although there are many forms of governance that currently exist, from a high level of democracy to its complete antithesis – a controlling and repressive dictatorship, all systems of global governance have to integrate with one another at some level in order to achieve certain key goals. As a means of analyzing the current global political economy, the following essay takes the stance that the current system of governance displayed within the world is represented as captialist imperialism. Accordingly, this analysis will seek to provide answers on the following subtopics: Aristotle’s definition of democracy, whether democracy is right or wrong under the preceding definition, Dahl’s definition of democracy, Wood’s argument with regards to what is specific to capitalist imperialism, Rosset’s challenge to the assumptions of need and conflict, Bhagwati’s understanding that free trade agreements are pandemic, and the understanding and definition that real free trade is both beneficial and possible. Aristotle’s main litmus test for styles of governance can be defined as whether or not he viewed them as ultimately virtuous or non-virtuous. Due to the fact that democracy is ultimately rule by the poor and/or rule by a majority, Aristotle views the decision-making process that takes place within a true democracy as ultimately non-virtuous. This is due to the fact that Aristotle previously defined virtue as a trait that is less common than non-virtue. Therefore, by very definition, rule by majority would be much more likely to display non-virtue than virtue. According to Aristotle, the reason that democracy is unable to present a high level of virtue among the citizenry of a given region/nation is due to the fact that democracy is ultimately based on a flimsy and misunderstood representation of the word freedom. According to Aristotle, “democracies define freedom badly... Everyone lives as he wants and toward whatever end he happens to crave” (Aristotle 28). What this ultimately represents is its schizoid system in which a litany of human wants, needs, and desires are all represented under the umbrella term of democracy; therefore somewhat whitewashing the term to appear to represent the desires and needs of a broad number of people. However, due to the fact that these individuals must be grouped by their handlers in order to speak to a specific range of needs, democracy rarely represents the needs of the people, of the masses, or the society at large. For Aristotle, the second determinant of whether or not democracy is a normal form of government that should be practiced around the world, he relies upon the definition and understanding of the concept of equality. Within the current system, equality has come to be one of the most praised and revered terms the democracies and societies around the world can exhibit. Ultimately, the understanding of equality drove the era of enlightenment as well as many of the thoughts, precepts, and foundational understandings that contributed to the writing and publication of the United States Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. However, according to Aristotle, equality is not a value that should be prized above all others. Rather, Aristotle believes that the best form of governance is governance that is decided by merit. This merit-based governance can be understood as a type of governance by the aristocratic members of society. Due to the fact that merit, within Aristotle’s understanding, is based upon political power, wealth, and procedures, these members of society are best suited to integrate with matters that they likely understand and have had a great deal of experience dealing with already. This merit-based definition of a superior form of governance is based upon the fact that Aristotle is ultimately fearful of the numerical equality that a large mob-mentality might provide. For Aristotle, this definition of democracy is the most frightening due to the fact that these members of society are neither educated nor interested in the greater precepts of virtue as he understands the aristocratic class to be. With regards to whether or not Aristotle believes democracy is right or wrong, one need understand that Aristotle notes that democracy itself cannot be termed a virtuous form of governance. According to Aristotle, this is due to the fact that an understanding and implimentation of democracy is ultimately rooted in a concept of universal equality. Within the current era, equality may be seen as something of a gold standard for which many would strive; however, to Aristotle, it only meant a form of rule by numerical superiority. As one might expect, the rather bellicose and pessimistic approach to democracy that Aristotle offers is countered by the prominent political scientist Robert Dahl. According to Dahl, democracy, although oftentimes flawed, is ultimately a far superior form of governance than anything that has previously been affected. This is due to a number of factors but is best explained by what Dahl refers to as the eight conditions for majority rule. These eight conditions cannot only be understood within the realm of democracy and equality, they also have a broad application within the realm of organizational behavior as it is understood within business and management (Dahl 83). According to his definition, the first of these eight conditions is the understanding and believing that each member of an organization votes according to an expression of preference. The second among these is the understanding or belief that the tabulation and weighting of these votes must necessarily be identical. The third represents the understanding that the individual or political group that represents the greatest number of these votes must necessarily be declared the winner. The system of governance also allows a system in which the voter can also express a preference based upon choices that are not provided to them; i.e. the ability to write in candidate preference on the voting ballots. Naturally all of these exist in a perfect world of definition only. The fifth of these is the fact that all of the individuals within the system must be able to have access to the same identical information with regards to making their ultimate choices. Likewise the sixth regards the means by which political powers transferred from the losers to the winners of the election cycle. The seventh deals with the means by which the orders of the elected officials are carried out in the eighth elaborates upon the means by which the outgoing political party must work with and integrate with the desires and needs of the incoming. Naturally, Dahl’s definition of democracy fully supports and understands the fact that the individual within the system, and the groups that they are able to form, have a profound and positive effect upon the means by which a democratic system evolves and comes to represent these specific, individual, and group needs. Rather than viewing democracy as something of an organized mob, Dahl maintains the understanding that democracy is a self-correcting process that helps society as a group hone and focus the ultimate needs which they seek to pursue and effect. Whereas many empires throughout the world were able to dominate other regions through the sole use of powerful navies and land armies, the existence of what Wood’s terms as capitalist imperialism represents a new dynamic within the world. Moreover, the thrust of Wood’s argument does not necessarily revolve around the means by which this capitalist imperialism is affected, rather the main thrust of the argument deals with regards to the manner in which capitalist imperialism creates a dominance and what she terms as “war without end” (Wood 15). In such a way, this new form of imperialism is driven by economic means. By seeking to understand the traditional definitions of Empire, as might be defined by the Roman or Spanish empires, the new Imperial capitalist model not only requires the use of militarism to affect its own goals but also manipulates currencies, global exchange, and debt levels as a means of preserving its empire. In such a way, nations and regions become pawns in the hands of the much larger and more moneyed interests that exist within the global economic political system. With regadrs to the second fundamental question that this analysis has been tasked with seeking to provide an answer to, it is the belief of this author that a form of regional and supraregional collaboration offer the best hope of being able to provide a better alternative than universal governance has thus far integrated. Ultimately, the belief in such a system hinges upon the fact that universal governance will invariably give the more powerful a more prominant voice; thereby disenfranchising those that would otherwise be without a voice in such a system. One of the authors that have been read to inform this piece, Peter Rosset, points to the fact that the needs of Northern and Southern farmers are ultimately not in conflict but represent a mirror image of one another. According to Rosset, this is due to the fact that the needs of both farmers from both regions, irregardless of their overall level of economic stability, are dependent upon the level and extent to which they can provide food sovereignty for their own people/nation. To this end, food sovereignty, as Rosset dubs it, is the ultimate goal upon which a nation should strive (Atwood 14). Rather than seeing the situation of global agriculture as a constant battle between moneyed interests and the poorer classes of production within the developing world, the global scholar should see the issue as representing the same point of view from both sides (Rosset 29). In such a way, Rosset views the global system as representing the very same needs and wants that its component players exhibit. This serves to represent a more internationalized view of the global system than many other political scientist have dared to engage with. Ultimately, trade and all derivatives of trade alliance, free trade, or any other type of trade mechanism cannot fully serve or represent the needs of all individuals involved within the given construct. Rosset points to this fact and emphasizes the understanding that even within trade between developed and underdeveloped nations a baseline of interests remain. Similarly, according to Bhagwati, free trade agreements are ultimately pandemic. This is due to a number of factors; however, the ones that Bhagwati spends the most amount of time detailing are concentric upon the belief and understanding that the actions and trade stance of another region/state economy has a direct effect, influence, and bearing on the means by which another region/state economy integrates with the first. Evidence of this can of course be seen in the way that integration of the European Union has rapidly increased integration that can be seen within the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the Western world (Bhagwati 22). As the United States Canada and Mexico realized that the power of the European Union was going to possibly eclipse their own, the need to engage with a greater level of free trade within their own geographic region became an issue of primary and fundamental importance. Bhagwati further notes that the pandemic nature of free trade agreements are reflected by the fact of overall integration that the globalized economy is currently exhibiting. Whereas trade forms the backbone of all economic growth, nations are primarily interested in gaining a share of this trade and promoting themselves within such a framework. In such a way, the self-interested nature of the state seeks to bring the economic shareholders and politicians into the same state of mind with regards been incessantly to integrate with the rest of the world the currently exhibits a degree of free trade agreements with other regions. Finally with regards to the extent that Bhagwati argues that real free trade is beneficial and possible, this hinges upon the definition of what free trade ultimately entails. Due to the fact that the more powerful economic partner of any free-trade agreement can bend the agreement to their own personal interests, the reality of free trade as many times more negative than Bhagwati’s definition. However, under Bhagwati’s definition of real free trade, a quid pro quo is developed between both engaging parties and helps to develop aspects of their economy that will be mutually beneficial to all parties involved. Although there are a few instances within the current global political economy that exhibits such a dynamic, Bhagwati believes that as the world becomes more integrated and a further level of economic and international interdependence is realized, the extent to which a more equitable version of free-trade agreements will begin to permeate is vastly increased. It is the further opinion of this author that Bhagwati’s understanding is reasonable and rational due to the fact that the exhibition and proliferation of free-trade agreements has only increased within the past several decades. However, the extent and degree to which self interests will continue to pervade these and represent an imbalanced representation is unlikely to decrease in the near future. From an understanding of the theories that are thus far been presented and defined, it is the belief of this student that the system which currently exists within the world is an imperialist capitalist system. Although a certain degree of democracy in varying forms of governance and between democracy and dictatorship are currently evidenced, the fact of the matter is is that economic power is the sole driving force that dictates both governmental and economic policy throughout the world. As a function of this, the most powerful nation or nations grouped within a given system will necessarily have an imperialist advantage over the weaker ones. This is of course evidenced and many of the recent wars that are taken place but the United States has been prominently involved in. Much like the wars that took place during the latter years of the British Empire, access to markets, and ensuring that the domestic currency maintains itself as the currency of worldwide exchange are the two most prominent factors that encourage an understanding and integration with the belief that the current system is most aptly defined by a form of capitalist imperialism. Works Cited Aristotle, and T. A. Sinclair. The politics. Harmondsworth, England New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 1981. Print. Atwood, Paul L. War and empire the American way of life. London New York: Pluto Press, 2010. Print. Bhagwati, Jagdish N. Termites in the trading system : how preferential agreements undermine free trade. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Dahl, Robert A. On democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print. Rosset, Peter. Food is different : why we must get the WTO out of agriculture. Black Point, N.S: Fernwood Pub, 2006. Print. Wood, Ellen M. Empire of capital. London New York: Verso, 2003. Print. Read More