Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: I think it promotes democracy in a way because the more people have something to eat, the more people don't go hungry to bed. Then they have time to learn other knowledge and challenge their leaders, but without this opportunity that means that people will not send their children to school, only the people will concentrate more on finding everyday food, destroy the forest, because they use them to cook, for example. And the homes will be destroyed. People will be prevented from thinking. People will be prevented from being advanced if there is no globalization in countries like Africa, Asia, where they're still poor. You find that it's very difficult because every family, every woman and every man have to find ways of helping their children and then you find that even diseases which could be cured are killing people. I think with globalization it's important for everybody, but also we shouldn't misused globalization. I think everything shouldn't be misused.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: Economic globalization is only a part. It becomes more and more evident that international business alone does not promote democracy. It is a false conclusion to believe that when the president of the United States visits an african state for 2 or 3 days, that ancient cultural traditions can be overshadowed with only financial investments. Nowadays you can only reach work-related ethics and democracy by other ways than global financial investment. This is especially true for the states of the so-called Third World countries. On the other hand, completely without economic impulse there can be no democracy. A fine and precise balance needs to be found in this case. But still it is a false conclusion to believe that financial investment will logically provide democracy. That is quite short-sighted. In the contrary. Thinking of South America or Africa, often an economic globalization causes a lot of social injustice, a loss of cultural and religious identity and in the end of human identity. Economic globalisation as such often extinguishes grown historical and cultural traditions. Consequently it would be wrong to say that democracy or the process of democratisation is promoted by economic globalization. I see this rather critically.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Cornel West: Well, first we have to call in the question the myth of there being some monolithic globalization. There is corporate globalization from above and there is democratic or people’s globalization from below. So, when we talk about corporate globalization, we are talking about the chasing of profit, pursuit of markets in order to reinforce the kind of class hierarchies that make it difficult for working peoples to have their voices heard in shaping their destinies. The democratic globalization from below has various kinds of connections: NGO’s, people’s organizations, trade unions, community groups across national boundaries that are trying to shape the globe in the interest of those, the great Franz Fanon called the wretched of the earth. The clash between corporate globalization and democratic globalization is such that we must acknowledge both the effects of people’s organizations as counter voices against the powerful and dominant effects of corporate globalization in the end driven by multinational corporations. One of the reasons why we are here is to keep track of the night side of corporate globalization and to promote, highlight, affirm, support democratic globalization from below. Dictators, dictatorial elite can go hand in hand with corporate globalization, and there are democratic elites can go hand in hand with corporate globalization. Democratic globalization always causing the question, any dictatorial rule, because what sits at the center of democratic globalization is the answerability and accountability of institution to everyday people.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: The issue here is for what and for whom is this globalization. In actual scenario, globalization benefits those who are in power. When we are going to analyze, it is always disadvantageous to the Third World countries, and, therefore, in one way or another globalization promotes economic dictatorship by the world powers. So, therefore, I think in the perspective of indigenous people, there is a need to really see and look at what's behind globalization and perhaps redefine it in a manner that it will not only benefit the global powers, but it will benefit local and indigenous communities down on the ground. So, in the perspective of indigenous people, globalization in one way or another promotes dictatorship by the superpowers at the moment. So, I think as an indigenous peoples’ representative, this is the thing that we should tell to the world, especially those who are in power to more or less consider a globalization that would benefit both people in the First World countries, in the Third World countries, in the Second World countries, and especially indigenous people.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Yes, Mr. Dubois. I feel that it does both. I think that there are places where actually the globalization has been very politic. It has brought in kind of a belief in the future and people have felt that they have more power to decide over their lives because the globalization has brought new opportunities in many countries where new things happen. Businesses are opened and people believe in the future and these places, I can say India is one of those places, that I am impressed by how globalization affected India as a society. But then I also feel that there are countries, which actually has gone the other way, where dictators have strengthened their positions through these kinds of foreign investments in this country, which is part of this globalization process. I feel that the globalization itself has no aim in promoting democracy or dictatorship. I think right now globalization is very economically oriented and it’s basically the big part of the globalization is how to make money in different ways in different countries in the world. So, in countries where there is a basis for democracy, it just goes forward by promoting democracy and places which are already a dictatorship, it actually strengthened it. It feels like. So, again I think the solution is in kind of global agreements of what are the rules which we play under.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara: Globalization should be seen from the view of the oppressed rather than of the opressor. Globalization was not made for classes in disadvantage who are given the possibility to say what they need. We observed that all concepts are made of already presupposed concepts which are in relation to the conventional. Globalization, for example, for indigenous people – to whom I belong - this globalization does not meet the necessities of those indigenous people. It’s a globalization for people who already have, who already possess something. For those who do not have, we do not believe that it is going to be a democratic process but one of dictatorship, because it imposes a world without knowing what’s best for indigenous people, for example.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: I don’t think that globalization per se either promotes democracy or consolidates dictatorship. Dictatorship is always dependent on a willful ignorance of people outside of the dictator state. Either the creation of them as enemies or the blocking of any news from outside, so that globalization in theory because it’s creating this tremendous intercommunication in the world, it seems to me that it has the possibility of being a force against dictatorship. Whether globalization is completely controlled by market forces, then it will – I guess globalization is completely controlled by market forces and then has the effect of whether it’s producing democracy or not. But, in theory, I think that a coming together of the peoples of the Earth has a potential of democracy in a way much more than a potential for dictatorship. Dictatorship always is a refusal to hear the other voices.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: The question of economic globalization whether it promotes democracy or consolidates dictatorship is of course a very big one in the world today. I’m an evolution biologist and I look at globalization in a much broader perspective than only in terms of its economics. And in order to talk about the economic globalization, I have to look at that bigger picture. What I believe globalization is really about, is about forming global family, moving out of what I call juvenile species mode of hostile competition and into a more mature mode of cooperation. This has happened to many species all through evolution, and it’s our turn now as humans to do this. And when I look at the broader picture of globalization, I see that cooperation is already happening in many ways. We have money systems that are interchangeable across all languages and cultures. We can use our Visa cards everywhere. We can travel anywhere in the world. Air traffic control is completely cooperative even for countries that are at war with each other. So, we have travel and money exchange and we have communications which went from one-to-one telephones to one-to-many broadcasting to now many-to-many conversations on the Internet, which are the in the direction of democracy or non-adversarial politics preferably. We have interface dialogs, more frequent world parliaments of religions, we have the UN, we have international treaties. So, we see cultural exchanges, international space stations, all of these things are in the direction of human cooperation at a global level. On the other hand, our economics are still way behind in the juvenile mode of hostile competition and that’s what we have to work on now to bring the economics of humanity into line with this process ultimately of forming global family.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Ervin Laszlo: It can do one or it can do the other. It kind of depends on what we are doing with it. Globalization is a process that’s happening, it can’t be reversed, it can’t be ignored. What it does for the time being is consolidates wealth and power. That is not dictatorship in the classical sense. That is certainly a consolidation of power and is far from being democratic.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru: Economic globalization is a way of consolidating power. Regions are coming together, companies are coming together to be able to be powerful and to sell their own niche. And when they do that, then they get the power to be able to bring their voices on the table. And to be able to come together, they are throwing a lot of the times their people who do not have enough power, that they want the ones who do not have the capacity. And, so, the -- eventually I go to direct to the discussions and directions where the one should go. A good example is what we are now seeing with big pharmaceutical industries that are controlling the manufacturing of the HIV and AIDS drugs. And, because they can talk in one voice, no matter how the people of the developing world particularly the activists in Africa talk about having generic medicines, the voice is not heard because they are small companies that have not matched with a growth -- with the big companies, they are able to dictate the direction and that’s the problem. I feel when you talk about the GMOs in the West, it’s controlled by big companies, they have come together, they have matched in the recent past. And, the voices of the groups that are against the GMOs cannot raise their voice against this people because these people are so powerful and so they dictate. So, numbers do dictate, and that’s a problem. But, if the numbers were to support the marginalized, if the number was to protect the marginalized, then we would not have the problem. But the trend is, the numbers are coming together to secure their own individual interests.

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Fernando Solanas: The economic globalisation is a sort of system which intends to make people believe that there is democracy. But in reality democracy leads to the fact that the elite of the country, especially in developing countries like Latin America,and in general the higher classes of society have most of the economic power. There is les democracy but more dominion of the old powers. You could add that the economic globalisation destroys small and medium-size firms in developing countries. That means it produces millions and millions of unemployed people, people who are excluded from the global system. Globalisation doesn't attempt to promote the development of the firms, or the development of labour in our countries. It is rather an expansion of colonialism in the era of automatisation, in the era of science, industry and knowledge explosion of the twentyfirst century.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Fred Matser: In essence, I would say that economic globalization in first instance promotes democracy, of course, as long as the players in the economic globalization carry the democratic values. So, in essence, I would say that is the case. The point is to what extent does economic globalization really help the people. If we can really create open systems in which we together have the intention to create partnerships and help people to come into their power, and be really participants in the global economic system, then it can function. And, of course, we may sometimes hit walls because when companies come into new countries, they are faced with certain traditions, and of course in many situations, it needs time to adapt to the new products and services that are offered. So, I would say in essence, yes, it can promote democracy as long as the carriers are indeed representing also democratic systems within their own companies. As you can see, it needs some warming up and getting accustomed to the situation, but we come step by step more into flow hopefully.

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: In theory the first one should be the case but in reality very often the second one happens and that is because behind globalization is not a common interest but very often big powers.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: Globalization sound like a new word. From my understand, we are one family, one family, what we call human being, doesn’t exist another alternative. And, the conception of globalization is started by recognition that all the global, all in this universe, exist this family, one family, respect, tolerance, benevolence. Again, the word globalization came with a high tech, all for us to communicate each other in an easier way. But, the source of globalization should be and, I repeat, the understanding that we are a family. Of course, we enjoy it, and we enjoy it,and use for good purpose the high tech, that now they put in front of the eyes the meaning of globalization. If this produce democrats or dictator, well, again and again depends on us. And, allow me to repeat. In the moment we are reunited in this globalization as human being, this question we will not need it. It will be much more the meaning of dictator, no question about, and the meaning of democracy. And, well, it is not only in a state.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: Globalization for me is a concept that’s very fluid and really sometimes confusing, because when you talk about globalization, talk about standardizing some of the values, trying to extend or liberalize the economy. And in this case, this has also resulted in some countries becoming economic -- dominating the economy, the world economy as opposed to other countries, and the other countries will not be able to really be able to have strong economies. In this case, this will result in some form of international dictatorship by those countries that have got the economic power. And in this case, we cannot really say that’s democracy. In the same way if we are talking about globalization, that brings us to the issue of a global village. If there is going to be a global village, who is the chief of that village? Obviously in a village there is a chief, and in that case the chief becomes -- if he is not democratic, he becomes somehow a dictator. And in this case, we are having such cases in which some countries are becoming too powerful and they want to sort of make their values accepted by almost all countries. And in this case, globalization is compromising democracy. And in this case, this is some form of international dictatorship. Of course, in a way, it supports intra [inaudible]-country democracy. Is the values at international level, if they are going to be impressed within the country level, it means that maybe a country might be democratic in a way. But in the same time, the nation, the international world can dictate to nations and that will compromise its sovereignty.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: Economic globalization, does it promote democracy? It is possible to promote, but not often it makes it possible. The intent of globalization is to enabling the purpose of gaining profit. And therefore, the intent is profit, it does not often promote democracy, because it is driven by the desire to acquire more economic benefit for the companies that indulge in trading. Whether it consolidates dictatorship, it could, it could. It is possible that economic globalization makes it possible for democracy to exist but is it also possible that it doesn’t promote democracy.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: Economy is not interested in giving people what they need the most, they have different goals. Economy is interested in maximizing their profits. Therefore they are more likely to strengthen dictatorship, but it is a dictatorship, which is hardly visible to the individual. It is a dictatorship to which people submit voluntarily. The power of economy lies in taking possession of resources, which nature gives us, and using these resources to impose them on others in their own way. It is easier for economy to negotiate with elites, to agree on profitable market conditions and access to resources. In democratic states there is too much resistance to accomplish such economic enterprises. Democracy is more an obstacle than an advantage. People must learn how to defend themselves against being used in such a way. They do not realize that they submit voluntarily to these powers and that their consumption is not based on their needs but it is connected to the possibilities to sell products which can be produced in large quantities. It is essential to free ourselves from this kind of dictatorship. We have to think about how to make this visible. Because they are nearly never represented in public by persons. In governments we still see the people, don't we?

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: I don’t think economic globalization promote, consolidate, or dictatorship. I think it’s good for the democracy.

by Harry Wu