As of October 2013, I have enrolled myself on a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) offered by the University of Texas at Austin through edX. The classes will cover many aspects of globalisation, and I am expected to write 11 essays in order to pass. This is the third written assignment I have done for the course. It explains the reasons for the nation state loss of power, as the globalisation process is consolidated.
The globalisation process, as the Brazilian geographer Milton Santos described, is characterized by three different aspects: “tale, perversity and possibility”. The first says that countries will become more integrated, so their societies and economies will flourish. According to the second, this prosperity is relegated to a secondary role as inequality worsens, the environment is degraded, and mechanisation transforms the labour market. The third scenario, however, is more optimistic, because it reaffirms the potential for the construction of a better world – not idealised, but good nonetheless. Among the consequences of the “pervert globalisation”, is the loss of power by the nation states, a contemporaneous phenomenon.
One of the principles of global integration is the standardisation of governmental actions. The European Union, for instance, was only able to consolidate its alliances when it determined common regulations for all of its members. These widely adopted laws, such as the supranational environmental policies, constitute a set of limitations on national autonomy. The sovereignty of the nation states is threatened by the increasing need for the establishment of partnerships with other players of the world arena. This is explained by the fact that these states are forced into accepting international norms, so as to have deeper relations with its neighbours. Thus, the supremacy of each country is weakened due to diplomatic pressures.
Another restriction on the authority of the governments is prompted by the imbalance of power between them and the multinationals. Multifarious corporations have been rivalling the nation state, due to their economic strength. Using their financial might, these enterprises try to convince many political institutions to pass bills that favour trade – any attempt to overregulate capitalism turns into an inhibitor of foreign direct investments. Consequently, this issue is greater in small countries, which cannot but give in to such coercive demands, lest international community’s capital aid be interrupted. Developed nations, conversely, simply retreat from exerting regulatory practises: it is their intention to stimulate commerce and industrialisation. It is clear, therefore, that the private sector may represent a menace to the nation state.
Furthermore, the nation state is also defenceless in face of the interests of its own population – especially in times when “soft power” (the ability of a nation to influence others through intangible assets) presents itself in the form of culture. Since the “global village” promotes the confluence of several previously local traditions, it may cause changes in the way a society think. As a result, each government is compelled to adapt itself, in order to reflect the new characteristics of the electorate. The problem, however, is that these transformations are not normal products of social interaction. Instead, they represent another type of influence that can support universal ideals, to the detriment of national ones. Thus, each state loses its particularities, as integration causes the homogenisation of civil society.
The nation state is losing its power, influence and independence in today’s globalised world. This is the result of diplomatic challenges, conflicts with multinationals and the advent of a “global village” that unifies cultures under the banner of a cosmopolitan citizenship. On the other hand, this weakening of the sovereignty of the state is not absolute. State capitalism, for instance, seems to be a way to guarantee that each government will retain, at least, part of its autonomy. Additionally, the administrators of a state are responsible for coordinating integration, due to their decision-making capabilities at the international organisations. Therefore, it can be inferred that, although the nation state is not the same powerful institution as it was at the beginning of globalisation process, it still represents a fundamental asset to the continuity of this progress.
Originally published on thimabi.wordpress.com.