Globalization vs. democracy
ITHACA, NEW YORK — Democracy is in retreat across much of the world, with authoritarian leaders and extremist movements gaining momentum amid widespread discontent with established political parties and institutions.
As democratic governance comes under strain, our most cherished ideals, such as equal freedom and rights for all, are increasingly at risk.
Democratic backsliding has many causes, including the depredations of Big Tech and the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation.
But the one that plays a critical role is emerging from a strange concoction of unchecked economic globalization and severe political balkanization.
This has enabled major powers like the United States to wield disproportionate influence over the well-being of billions of people worldwide, who have no political voice. The bedrock principle of democracy is that people affected by the decisions of political leaders should have a say in selecting those leaders.
This idea is so fundamental that even authoritarian countries like Russia and North Korea hold elections, ostensibly allowing citizens to “choose” their leaders.
Of course, these elections pose no real threat to the existing regime. In North Korea’s 2023 election, for example, Kim Jongun’s Workers’ Party received 99.91 percent of the votes.
To comprehend the problem, imagine that U.S. presidents were elected solely by voters in the District of Columbia. Every resident of Washington would have the right to vote, and the candidate with the most votes would become president.
Even if this process were free from fraud, it would be difficult to consider the U.S. a democracy under such conditions.
Elected leaders would naturally prioritize the interests of Washington residents over those of Americans everywhere else, whose well-being would have little to no impact on their chances of being re-elected.
While this scenario may seem farfetched, people all around the world find themselves in the same position as a disenfranchised Texan or Michigander.
The accelerated economic globalization of the past four decades, driven by increasingly interconnected supply chains and the rapid advance of digital technologies, has facilitated the free flow of capital and goods across national borders.
But this also means that major powers are now able to affect individuals and communities all over the world with just a few clicks.
As matters stand, the well-being of billions of people hinges on the decisions made by the sitting U.S. president. While American leaders have the power to disrupt numerous economies by severing supply chains or manipulating financial flows, the citizens of these countries have no influence over U.S. elections.
Similarly, Ukrainian or Georgian citizens have little say over who rules Russia, even though who rules Russia can have a large influence on their well-being. (Of course, even Russians have no say over who rules Russia).
This erosion of global democracy could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences. While the U.S. government puts considerable effort into managing its domestic economy effectively, it has adopted a cavalier approach to foreign policy.
The ongoing crisis in the Middle East is a case in point.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s unconditional support for Israel’s war against Hamas over the past six months has benefited Israel’s embattled prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.
But as U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have pointed out, the goals of ordinary Israelis — who want to end the war and bring home the hostages — differ significantly from those of Netanyahu and his far-right political allies, who seek to prolong the conflict to maintain their hold on power.
This underscores the anti-democratic nature of hegemonic powers. If Israeli citizens could vote in U.S. presidential elections, America’s Middle East policy might have been markedly different.
Such a policy would likely have aligned more closely with the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians, rather than with Netanyahu’s political agenda. I hasten to add that matters would likely be worse if Trump won the U.S. election. But I suspect that the Democratic Party would win, but with a rather different Middle East policy, if ordinary Israelis, and not just Netanyahu and his cronies, had a voice in the U.S. election.
There is no easy solution to this conundrum. Israelis will not be voting in U.S. elections anytime soon, and Ukrainians will not influence the selection of Russia’s next leader. The advance of digital technology and globalization, and the consequent erosion of global democracy, highlights the tradeoffs and vulnerabilities inherent in the current international order.
As I argued in my book “The Republic of Beliefs,” it is possible to establish binding laws and regulations even without direct state intervention. The key, as Eric Posner and Cass Sunstein have also pointed out, is to foster appropriate norms that are self-enforcing.
At the same time, we must strive to create more effective multilateral organizations and international charters aimed at strengthening democratic governance worldwide.
“
Our most cherished ideals are increasingly at risk.
”