The new paradigm： Globalization and Liberalism

The globalization debate is unending. In hindsight, as a process it has occurred significantly throughout history. What is different about this new paradigm of globalization? Is it because of the triumph of liberalism? This article will try to elaborate further by comparing the different articles by Fukuyama, Huntington and Higgott in an attempt to answer both questions.

In Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History” he was very critical when he talked about the triumph of economic and political liberalism. He saw that mankind was at the end of the road in terms of the ideological warfare. There was no anti-thesis to liberalism after its defeat of Fascism and Communism.

On the contrary, when analyzing the concept of history as a dialectical process coined by Hegel, ideas define and drive the material world. In other words, evolution began with ideas, the human mind which produces the ideas is fallible (prone to imperfections). This fallibility of the human mind means that the newer ideas will emerge by confronting, negating or complementing the old ideas.

Marx’s interpretation varies when he deems the material mode of production or material world as the driving force behind ideas. Marx saw the poor conditions of the workers (proletariat) under the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and initiated Marxism as the anti-thesis to capitalism. Moreover, people’s love for material wealth has driven them to have all kinds of ideas.

For Fukuyama, history ended in 1806 where mankind’s ideological evolution ended in the ideals of the French and the American Revolution. Regardless of the fact that some modern day regimes do not implement these ideals fully their theoretical truth is absolute and could not be improve upon. For example, China politically is a socialist state but it has pockets of economic liberalism evident in its economy. During the reform the architect of China’s economic success Deng Xiaoping introduced free market for the peasants to replace the Commune system and decentralized economic decision making to the provinces permitting especially the coastal provinces to create special economic zones to attract foreign direct investments.

Therefore, the world is at the end of history because we have passed the state of consciousness where ideas no longer create the material world but the material world influences the ideas one has. As such, western ideas and civilization have and will continue to dominate as long as there is no strong challenge from the non-western world. This leads us to Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” where he pointed out that a new form of conflict will divide the world. Defining civilizations as cultural entities, he argues that the conflict will not be ideological or economic but cultural. The principal conflict of nations versus groups of different civilizations is so common in contemporary international relations after the cold war, America the diamond of western civilizations against Taliban insurgents of the Islamic civilizations is a classic epitome.

What is the significance of globalism in analysis? After the cold war, liberalism has played a prominent role in speeding up the globalization process. The process existed throughout history, the silk road is a trademark of globalization, but liberal ideas have bulldoze the barricade of sovereignty making the spread of information, capital, technology, human technological know-how and public goods effective and efficient.

On the other hand, globalization ensured that the foundations of liberalism sunk deep into the pillars of every civilization on earth. Globalization spread the consumerist western culture from Tehran to Port Moresby to Sao Paulo. Without globalization, liberalism would be void of the accomplishments and conquests.

In Richard Higgott’s “Contested Globalization: The Changing Context and Normative Challenges”, he defines globalization as the process of economic liberalization, where he tries to chart a new policy debate on global governance to address inequality and poverty that global liberalization brings and to ensure that global justice prevails. Thus, it is an undeniable fact that globalization is rapidly widening the gap between the have and have not. Linked to the Dependency Theory of Development where the educated elites in developing countries with easy access to markets and the convenience of air travel are exploiting the wealth of their country resulting in lack of development.

Consequently, to deliver public goods the Washington Consensus or synonymously neo-liberalism under the structural adjustment policy pursued reforms to deregulate, privatized and liberalized. But after the 1997 financial crisis a new paradigm was sought to bail countries known as the Post Washington Consensus (PWC) where civil society, social capital, capacity building, governance, transparency, a new international economic architecture, institution building and safety nets were added.

PWC was less politicized; more humanized and focused more on global governance enhancing effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of public goods. In addition, global governance was used as a normative enterprise to enhance democracy, thus, institutions like IMF, World Bank, UN and WTO were key players in the debate on global governance.

The three different scholars all argued based on a western perspective where liberalism as the dominant ideology featured prominently. In the end of history liberalism emerged as the dominant ideology superseding all rivals, while in the clash of civilization the western civilization reigned supreme over all other civilizations, and in contested globalization global governance is characterized by liberalism and managed by the west.

Thus, this article leaves the door open when discussing the fallibility of the human mind. According to Marx with the material world of rampant inequality created by globalization and liberalism, how can one create a level playing field for states in the international system? The gap between the developing and the developed is increasing, working in the favour of the developed world which is the West.

Certainly we are at the end of history there is no other independent ideology that can challenge liberalism. Nonetheless, there is one approach which is modeled on the Confucius-Taoist Dialectics of Harmonization which is in opposition to the Hegelian-Marxist Dialectics of Harmonization which has shaped the world ever since. In the Hegelian-Marxist Dialectics of Harmonization when there is a thesis for example Democracy there is an anti-thesis Communism, the synthesis is the winning ideology that emerges after the non-violent struggle evident in the cold war. Other examples are good versus evil and black versus white.

On the other hand, the Confucius-Taoist dialectics of harmonization encourages the harmonious co-existence of two opposite polarities, the co-existence of the Yin and the Yan or the male and the female. For example, the thesis is the Command Economy of China, while the anti-thesis is Liberal Market Economy. When the thesis and the anti-thesis meet the effect or the synthesis is the harmonious co-existence resulting in a Socialist Market Economy or China’s hybrid system, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

This non-western approach belong to the Confucian civilization has the potential to create a hybrid system by fusing elements of two contradicting ideas. Apart from using the status quo western philosophy, evolution has brought us to the next stage of history labeled as not the End of History but the Co-Existence of History. Thus developing countries in their bid to attain some form of development and create a level playing field in international politics can replicate China’s transformation.

In countries where democracy has not worked well because of corruption especially those third world countries in Africa, and the Pacific like Papua New Guinea. Through the process of reforms some freedom and rights of citizens will be restricted for the common good. A loophole in the current system is the lack of quality political leadership. If there are laws to regulate who runs for public office, it will help in selecting the best candidate but restrict the democratic right and freedom of every citizen who wish to stand for public office.

The success of this idea depends on less intervention from the West. Since globalization has eroded sovereignty away the internal political affairs of a state is fiddled by the vanguard of democracy, the West. In contrast, the non-intervention policy of China is respectful in the sense that not all countries have the same development path and characteristics. What works well in Britain will be foreign to the Philippines. Thus, it is logical to let states in the international system pursue their national interest in developing independently either through a military regime, authoritarian regime or a guided form of democracy because the “ends justifies the means”.

A harmonious fusion of ideologies modeling the Confucian philosophy is the next step in evolution.