Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Probably both in one sense. I'm not too sure about this question. Probably both. I would need to think of examples but it actually brings to mind to me the idea of benefits from economic globalization. Certainly the idea of globalization and economics has much power but I'm actually no expert in this area so I think I should leave it. I'm stumbling a bit and I need to be vulnerable and human to say I really don't know because I have never really thought about a question like this but as I said it probably does both. It promotes some dictatorship but it can provide democracy in some way if people have access to the stuff but because it's about economy and economy is all from the post to community and it's about profit too, which is opposed to people. Sometimes it's not very democratic and it also can be autocratic in the sense that it perpetuates autocracy in a sense of, you know, maybe the top 500 rich people or something like that who benefit from it. So it depends on who does benefit from this is the real question from me.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: To my understanding, the issue of economic globalization refers to the integrating of socioeconomic standard, which may be done globally, which has got a common goal, which is to uplift the people’s life. Yes, I will agree with this statement that it does promote democracy in that countries will have [a choice] to make, so that they are able to reach this – the point of democracy. And in real terms of costs, it will also have the element of dictatorship. Dictatorship at some point will also determine democracy. This is where now people look at certain issues, which are also components of democracy. And therefore, it is without doubt that the globalization, the economic globalization will promote democracy. And of course, there will need each other, dictatorship in return, it can also be used as a democratic vehicle. Depending on the situation, whereby this socioeconomic need to be done. Like, for an example, you may find some elements of democracy in certain areas of the country being low. And what do we need? Really, we need the socioeconomic standard, which will globally promote and add value to the democratization, because the most important thing here is to reinforce economic benefit for all. It is all about poverty reduction, which will lead people to prosperity, and which will expand the good living standards, which will promote the better life for all. So, therefore, it is imperative that this kind of economic globalization be put in place so that democracy is then able to be consolidated in a fashion, which is going to be suitable for all.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: The answer is yes and we have to say why. Well, it’s because when you have economic globalization there is free movement of capital, free movement of finance, the financial market can create money without control, and the result is massive unemployment, poverty. We create a spiritual desert because everything is based on material wealth and material wealth is very empty. The more wealthy the people, the more miserable they become and they leave people especially the people whose lives feel very empty. We leave them vulnerable to fundamentalism and dictators are very good at promoting fundamentalism through religion, through patriotism whatever means.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: This question is linked to question No. 1. This goes back partially to the issue of accountability. Again, when there is no accountability, there are no checks on power. And when there are no checks on power, there is a higher chance that dictatorship will thrive. And the way economic globalization is being practiced today, it is increasing the chances of consolidating dictatorships, dictatorships throughout the world, precisely because such corporations that play such an important role in economic globalization today have very little accountability. There are very few checks on their power. They are treated like individuals when they are not individuals. The law looks at them as individuals when they are not individuals. Their interests are not social interests. Their interests are financial interests. There are no mechanisms in place where people can challenge the powers of the corporations – legal, institutionalized mechanisms. These increase the chances for a dictatorship.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: If globalization is really done on a level, on which it can be done, meaning: you don't just globalize products and you don't just export ideas on your own, but if it's really kind of grass-roots approach then it will be definitly promote democracy, but if it's just about exporting ideas to other countries that are your own ideas and you don't respect people in those other countries, but just want them to be consumers, then in the end it's going to be a kind of dictatory regime, then again as long as people don't feel under dictatorship even though it is a dictatorship, it may promote both, it may promote democracy on a level and dictatorship on a level. I think the key is that people get enough economic possibilities to really be democratic, because if I don't have time, and food and water to behave democraticly then I may very well switch to a dictatorship, that provides me with what it is essential for me or what I think is essential for me. The same is true for information, if you are only provide goods, economicly, globalize, then in the end maybe people have just to struggle and work more to buy this food items, but they still don't have freedom, it's a matter of perception, I guess. I guess you can be happy in both systems.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: The economic globalization promotes dictatorship in order to ensure a success of the market. With the progress of the market there is a regression of the state, where the economic globalization becomes violent due to the insatiable demand of the market. The aim of the economic globalization is to sell and to buy; profit and global power are the things tha matter. Such is the internal logic. The result is that human beings do not matter as individuals but only as consumers. Globalization requires strong governments, governments that impose the will to buy, and to buy more products from out of their own countries. Countries producing sugar, coffee, wheat, corn sell it for a miserable price and such a situation increases poverty and prevents the development of communities. So, in a hidden manner the globalization favors governments, dictatorial governments. This is the logic of the system. The globalization is nothing else than an evolution of the mercantile system, of capitalism and neoliberalism.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: When the correct economic structure is globalized, it promotes the democracy. However, when the economic globalization is making progress with some egoistic minds, I think, the gap between the rich and the poor widens and then the dictatorship will come. I believe that the consciousness of each person’s mind is important for the economic globalization. If we think all the time only one’s own interest (like, “I do not care about the rest of the world or the situation of the other countries if only I am happy and/or only I can make a profit”) and plan the economic globalization with such a self-interest idea, it causes the inequality of the world. Thereafter, some specific people in the high income bracket are assumed to gain the power more and more, and finally it makes the dictatorship firm once again. Because of my assumption above, I believe that we should keep watching the consciousness of the people carefully in order to avoid such a situation that some specific rich people control the world economy.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: Well, my answer is dictatorship. Because, I am from Bangladesh and when they want to do economic globalization, of course it’s improved. We have big industries and everything. But at the end, most of the development doesn’t go to the country. So, I think it’s -- when you have that, it’s a big dictatorship, because most of the profit doesn’t come to the real country and it’s very shame. But in other way, economical globalization is very important, but is it going to the right people or when they do it they are dictate the country. So, for me it’s dictatorship.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: Economic globalization is not something that we can decide, whether we want to have or not. It’s something that has been happening and that something that will continue to happen in the way the world is interlinked. It seems to me, it’s an inevitable or impossible to stop it. So the question we have to ask, perhaps, is not whether economic globalization can promote democracy or dictatorship, but how can we use or channel economic globalization to promote democracy? How can we make sure that economic globalization cannot be hijacked by people who want to use it for their own personal gains and not for the gains of the people who are involved? And like many of the questions that I’m going to come after this. This question two, relates to using economic globalization not as an abstraction but as a concrete thing, one has to go case by case. There are certain cases of economic globalization which are actually not good. Where people from some parts of the world like getting exploited, whereas, many aspects of economic globalization are good which are giving people the fair amount of power for their own lives that are allowing the people to use the product. And most important, often times, economic globalization allows people to use the resources of this planet more efficiently, so that we don’t just have excess amount of product A in one part of the world while other part -- people in the other part of the world don’t have that product. So, I think the real issue is how do we make sure that economic globalization is something that promotes democracy. The real answer once again is same forces which will make sure that democracy remains intact and healthy, will make sure that economic globalization is being used for promoting democracy itself, so how do we do that? Only way is, that we keep all of us who remain engaged.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Bon jour, Monsieur Dubois in Metz, France. Good morning, Mr. Dubois in Metz, France. It consolidates dictatorship and in the following way we have seen demonstrations against World Trade Organization meetings by groups of workers, environmentalists, farmers, consumers, all people who are decisively affected in their lives and in their work by the consolidation of economic power, neoliberal economic power, in the hands of major corporations and their supporters in the group of so called advanced industrial countries. It is the urgent task of all groups of workers, farmers, consumers and environmental activists to resist, to resist this globalization movement which seeks to impose upon the world a certain set of economic institutions and standards, particularly this so-called globalization effort seems designed to maintain countries in the so called Third World in a condition of dependency upon the production of primary products. And globalization under those circumstances by promoting so called free trade impedes the orderly process of economic development on the part of those countries. Those who, like me, are engaged in the law, have a special responsibility to formulate and see applied, rules that respect the interests of workers and other groups who are adversely affected by the globalization movement, which among other things seeks on the continent of Europe to break down the various protections that have been instituted in the constitutions and laws of the members of the European community; and in the North America that seeks to break down worker and environmental protections by such devices as the NAFTA agreement.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: It does neither, maybe it does both. There are too many variables to really see the part, on either/or situation. Certainly, over the last century we have seen a hybrid that we have so-called advanced democracies, whether North America, Europe, that have strong links, predominantly with military connections supporting dictators, so that we sustain low cost resources from those countries. In that sense a real stain upon those democratic nations that fail tend to look at the social and ecological footprint of the actions--kind of out of sight out of mind. To the degree that economic globalization is causing a homogenization of the planet, I think that’s a serious problem, because it’s establishing a kind of dictatorial rule that this homogenization is so-called progress. If anything, from an ecologist perspective, this is making the world more brittle, less resilient. The social ecological systems within which we live and operate were designed over many centuries through resilience in the way that it can buffer sudden disturbances, feedback mechanisms that result from the way that we use resources. And in this economic globalization, we are seeing things, brittle systems collapsing. An example being fisheries, which supposedly we were doing maximum sustainable harvesting, which was thought to be a long-term option. It turned out that it was not, and it has collapsed some three-fourths of the major fisheries in the world. So…

by Michael P. Totten

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Mohammed Arkoun: Globalisation certainly has two functions: They are positive and negative functions. Globalisation under the supervision of states and societies cooperating with democratic states can significantly improve democracy because it creates contact possibilities between various cultures, various experiences for democracy improvement; and this can have a positive impact. Then, the question of dictatorship is related especially to new states that emerged from the independences, that is, in the fifties and sixties. Since the whole Africa and a great part of Asia were colonised by Europe. And, as they became politically independent new states emerged which, it has been noted since more than 50 years, haven't had enough as states before the intervention of great globalisation forces. Nations which haven't been able to install a conclusive democratic experience to improve democracy with an appropriate culture, with appropriate democratic intitutions. So, there's this great break, this huge gap that has been increasing since the fifties, between the West, that had a rich democratic experience in the past and and those countries which we call emerging, where democracy isn't yet enough developed. Now, democracy is a reference.

by Mohammed Arkoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Mohau Pheko: I don't think it does either. I certainly don't think that economic globalization promotes democracy nor do I think that it consolidates dictatorship because if we talk about dictatorship, dictators are created by systems, political systems, so to speak and perhaps economics is used to maintain those people in power. But, economic globalization in and of itself, because it is based on profit, it is based on capital and the ability of capital to move around the world, it is based on ensuring that only a few people enjoy the profits that emerge from economic globalization. It does not promote democracy in that sense because those people living on the margins of the world, for example, would not have the benefits of economic globalization. Many may say that the Internet, for example, computers, our ability to communicate at a much larger scale than we ever have unprecedented in history, really it does not benefit or filter down to people who live on the margins. So, I would say that economic globalization doesn't promote democracy, but it also does not consolidate dictatorships. In a sense, we have to begin to look at globalization as a discourse, as part of the dominant discourse, part of liberal thinking so to speak that says that certain people need to necessarily be poor in order to allow others to be rich. Now, does dictatorship have anything to do with economic globalization? As I have said, I think that it may influence it in terms of how economics are used to ensure that dictatorships remain in power.

by Mohau Pheko

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Monira Rahman: It depends how we are utilizing this economic globalization, whether it is promoting democracy or consolidating dictatorship. It is important that this economic globalization is for equal share and promoting solidarity and prosperity for each and everyone in this world. It is not just for rich people. So when it is just for the power for people and for the rich people then obviously it will promote the dictatorship and do we have sin in this world nowadays? Different -– the colonization and obviously controlling and grabbing and the violence -- So obviously it is about coming up this global economic and for this social development and it depends on how you’re utilizing this economic globalization for promoting democracy. And obviously it is important that we are not giving this world terrorism and violence.

by Monira Rahman

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Nadja Halilbegovich: Well, I think you can do both. If economic profit overrides human rights then definitely people are repressed and people don’t participate in the economic growth and don’t reap benefits of their labor and of the natural resources of their country. However, if the system and the government supports people and encourage people to participate in the economic growth, then I think that does promote democracy and promote stability in democracy. It can do both but, of course, I believe that it should always promote democracy, stability, promote human rights, fairly pay people, give them fair human conditions, humane conditions to work in. So, it should definitely only promote democracy and human rights.

by Nadja Halilbegovich

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Neela Marikkar: Well, I think it does both. I think you have both democratic governments and dictatorships who promote economic globalization. Economic globalization is more about trade and investment, and I think that it doesn’t really matter which side of the divide you are, because these are trade issues and investment issues. I think if you take a example of India and Pakistan, I mean that’s a paradox in itself, where you have India as a democracy and Pakistan as a dictatorship, they both promote economic globalization. So, I don’t think you can say that it promotes one versus the other, it doesn’t. Both types of -- both options promote economic globalization.

by Neela Marikkar

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Oliviero Toscani: Economic globalization promoted dictatorship. We know that we are under that economic globalization dictatorship. And the – slowly I hope, because you know, I have to say that I am an optimist at the end, I mean, we better hope so. This dictatorship that is sold and promoted as democracy is actually driven and based on economic interest. The way that this dictatorship is communicated makes the difference and the way that people absorb it with more or less passive attitude make the difference. There are big dictatorships that actually they are sold or presented as democracy, but actually they are dictatorship. We are all under an economic dictatorship. Profit decides the level of democracy of every country.

by Oliviero Toscani

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Oscar Olivera: Actually economic globalization is a dictatorship of supranational capital. Hence, globalization is not more than the consolidation of this dictatorship and definitely we can say that democracy exists in very few places. Under democracy we understand, who decides, who [builds]in an autonomous way and in the form of it's realities and interests this democracy. Hence, well, globalization strengthens this dictatorship of supranational capital, and that's what they are prohibiting today in the world: a dictatorship of supranational capital over the people, with the only goal to plunder our common goods and to confiscate the most basic human rights, to think, to act, and to be able to decide and to [control] ones own life.

by Oscar Olivera