Ref. :  000001936
Date :  2001-10-14
Language :  English
Home Page / The whole website
fr / es / de / po / en



The question of ‘democracy’ is at the heart of the ‘globalisation’ debate. It appears essential to really understand the link between privatisation of globalisation (under the restrictive figure of economic and financial globalisation) and privatisation of democracy (under the rival forms of European and American democracies).
On one side of the debate, the Western governments, multilateral organisations and international firms use ‘democracy’ as a sales pitch, or even the ultimate objective of ‘mondialisation’ reduced to its contemporary economic phenomenon of industrial and financial globalisation. This last, ignoring or breaching the normal frontiers of the past (geographical, legal, monetary…), equalising production and consumption costs, harmonising living conditions, facilitating transfers and exchanges, more rapidly diffusing knowledge and tools, would also have the virtue of extending the democratic paradigm to the whole planet. For one ‘democracy’ as a positive model would be better known and reproduced in the entire world. And also, the improvement of the economic and social environment, the supposed effect of globalisation, would bring in its wake an improvement of democratic practices and conditions. Thus globalisation would produce democracy, in the same way as Monsieur Jourdain, without even realising it.
In fact, strengthened by this continually reaffirmed conviction, the Western democratic governments only grant access to the paradise of the free market on the condition that a ‘democratic clause’, its content set out how they will, is satisfied. The same goes for the future Free-Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) headed by Canada and the United States, this clause meaning that the entry of any future member (like Haiti) depends on an immediate and controlled democratisation of its regime. The same for the IMF and the World Back, a grant of a structural or provisional financial package being only allocated in the presence of or with the promise of a better democratic framework. Thus a state cannot expect long-term economic benefits of democracy if it does not give democratic guarantees in the short term.
On the other side of the debate, the critics of this idyllic vision of the future ‘world democracy’ denounce the actual recent results of economic globalisation. Results that they feel are disastrous not only on a social level but also for the evolution of democratic regimes and practices. Thus, countries in South-East Asia, such as Singapore, whilst they have seen impressive economic growth over the course of the last two decades, their ‘exemplary globalisation’ was achieved in part to the detriment of a comparable progress on the democratic front. The same for many of the Latin-American countries, which the North-American politicians take great pleasure in underlining no longer suffer under dictatorships or coups d’Etat, yet remain very fragile ‘democracies’ (precisely because they are faced with new forms of instability generated by globalisation) which barely conceal their profoundly oligarchic characters. The same for some Eastern European countries which were expected to quickly democratise after the USSR was dismantled and are now showing signs of contradictory evolution: with the ‘progress’ from one euphoric electoral day often being quickly erased by a return to ‘past tendencies’.
Moreover, those who remain sceptical about its democratic virtues predict that the worst is yet to come, beyond the inventoried effects of the last two decades globalisatory wave. In fact, ‘mondialisation’ reduced to the economic/financial form of ‘globalisation’ should not only be understood as ‘a process’ or ‘a fact’ that you must be content to accept, with consequences that are difficult to manage on a democratic level. Globalisation would carry with it a simplistic democratic project, or even be clearly ‘antidemocratic’. Through the limitations that it inflicts on the expression of cultures and minority nations, through development of the oligarchic practices and of the power distribution that it favorises, through the weak representativity of the elite who bring to this project for world democracy’ their tendency to invalidate uncontrollable forms of political participation in ‘civil society’, it would rest on a profoundly undemocratic ideology. In the end, it is nothing less than a project for privatising the world.
A privatisation which would begin with that of the criteria, practices and objectives of ‘democracy’ understood as having only one meaning. The idea that the dominant American/European democratic model could be spread over the whole world in the same way as Hollywood blockbusters or Coca-Cola cans, and by similar commercial means. The idea that between commerce, free-trade and democracy, there would be not only little fords but also identifiable and reproducible causality. The world privatisation of democracy would be the movement through which, borrowing from the paths of commerce, a small number of public and private leaders would give themselves the right to impose on the world ‘a certain idea of democracy’, because it would be ‘the best for everyone’ – and, of course, for this very small number. ‘Everything that is good for General Motors….’: we know how it goes…
The last take over bid, the consecration of so many efforts, the outcome and the reality of such a process, would therefore be a take over of ‘democracy’ itself.
If it has not already taken place?

(On the same problem or on connected issues we recommend the following article in Spanish by the same author : Comercio de la democracia, democracia del Comercio)

Rate this content
Average of 164 ratings 
Rating 2.43 / 4 MoyenMoyenMoyenMoyen
Same author:
 flecheLeçons de la « Grippe espagnole » de 1918-1919
 flecheL’intelligence de la bibliothèque publique
 flecheTriomphe de la post-citoyenneté
 flechePublication de L'Homme post-numérique
 flecheCharlie : comment répondre au défi ?
 flecheDigital Domination
 flecheAcerca de los Megaproyectos en Uruguay
 flecheEurope, Maghreb, Machrek : Que faire ensemble du monde euro-méditerranéen, maintenant et pour les dix prochaines années ?
 flecheWhy the need for a Universal Declaration of Democracy?
 flecheThe meaning of “carnage”?
 flecheLa « culture numérique » : à problématique « nouvelle », approches et solutions différentes ?
 flechePiratage (Modifier l'approche du ---)
 flecheDiversité culturelle et dialogue interculturel : confusion ou exigence ?
 flechePiratage (modifier l’approche du ---)
 flecheRéévaluer « l’économie de la création » à l’âge de la dématérialisation numérique
 flecheAbstract of a keynote speech at the "Dialogos da Terra no Planeta Agua" (November 26-28, Minas Gerais - Brazil)
 flecheCosmopolitical approach to Water
 fleche« Fin d’un monde » ou crise de son modèle ?
 flecheLa culture pour rendre le monde vivable
 flecheTransparence (Révélation de l’opacité, mondialisation de la --- ?)
 flechePour une éducation à la diversité culturelle et au dialogue interculturel
 fleche10 Thesis about the present meaning and orientation of Global research
 flecheTravail et emploi : la confusion permanente
 flecheCultural diversity
 flecheLa Convention sur la diversité culturelle reste à mettre en œuvre!
4 tâches prioritaires pour la société civile

 flecheCultures et mondialisations : les sons de la diversité

 flechePhilosophie des mondialisations et mondialisation de la philosophie

 flecheLaw of Globalization and/or globalization(s) of Law ?
 flechePauvreté et Violence
 flecheDiversité culturelle : un projet cosmopolitique
 flecheFor an offensive concept of cultural diversity
 flecheCultural diversity, globalisation and mondialisations
 flecheLa Puissance du rituel mondial
 flecheWord Social Forum n°5 : A trial of truth
 flecheComercio de la democracia, democracia del Comercio
 flecheOMC : la refondation ou la fin ?
 flecheFor a reassessment of the concept of cultural diversity
 flecheWar, the supreme stage of poverty?

 fleche‘Fight against poverty’: for a new order

 flecheGlobal and mondial
 flecheTowards a philosophical pedagogy of NICTs
 flecheThe critical sharing of globalisation(s) could be achieved by appropriate intercultural education and training
 flecheAway with "anti-globalisation"
 flecheJohannesburg (Le risque de...)
 flecheQue peut être "l'exception culturelle" ?
 flecheLa diversité culturelle : du consensus mou au projet politique
 flechePrivatisation or sharing of cultural identities and diversity?
 flecheMorale et politique
 flecheTemps fragiles
 flecheDématérialisation de l’argent, déresponsabilisation du sujet politique
 flecheDématérialisation de l’argent
 flecheLe GERM : un laboratoire de la diversité culturelle pour comprendre «la globalisation» et les mondialisations
 flecheLa Bonté des maîtres du monde
 flecheProblématique des mondialisations
 flecheLe Monde est-il un village ?
Et peut-il être une Cité ?

 flecheLe cas Napster
 flecheLa controverse de Gênes
 flecheEconomie de la matrice, cosmopolitique de la diversité
 flecheLe cheval de Troie des Amériques
 flecheThe Napster affair
 flecheRien de nouveau sous le Soleil noir de la mondialisation
 flecheDe la mondialisation aux mondialisations : domination ou partage du monde ?
 flecheLe Monde en perspective
 flecheGlobal Village
 flecheFractures (résorber les --- )
 flecheGlobalisation : the law of the strongest ?
 flechePour une ''philosophie des mondialisations''
Keywords   go
Translate this page Traduire par Google Translate

Share on Facebook
Partager sur Twitter
Share on Google+Google + Share on LinkedInLinkedIn
Partager sur MessengerMessenger Partager sur BloggerBlogger