|
COPYRIGHT 2006 Professors World Peace Academy
Many scholars posit that globalization of national economies has weakened states' control over their societies among developing countries, thus contributing to their democratization. Some scholars such as Samuel Huntington would, however, argue that states from different civilizational groups are so fundamentally different that they react differently toward a similar change, such as internationalization of their economies or democratization of their societies. In order to test the validity of his "Clash of Civilizations" thesis, therefore, this paper analyzes his most critical and fundamental claim of civilizational uniqueness by examining whether Confucian or Islamic states would react differently from all other states towards the increased internationalization of their economies.
INTRODUCTION
Ever since it appeared in the Summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington's article "The Clash of Civilizations?" has attracted much attention and reaction. Just when the end of the Cold War seemed to have ushered us into what Francis Fukuyama (1989) called "The End of History,"--making democratization of countries the main focus of attention among scholars and politicians--Huntington (re)introduced the age-old culturalist thesis about the sources of conflicts by drawing our attention to the "inevitable" clash between civilizations. He concluded that the critical conflicts in the coming decades would occur because of the challenges to the West from Islamic and Confucian civilizations.
Some studies used statistical analyses to test the validity of Huntington's arguments. (i.e., Henderson, 1997 & 1998; Midlarsky, 1998; Russett, Oneal, & Cox, 2000; Weede, 1998) They focused their attention on how much the Clash of Civilizations thesis may explain militarized interstate disputes that took place in the past and concluded their report by expressing their skepticism about the validity of Huntington's thesis. Russett, et al., for instance, concluded that "there is little evidence that [civilizations] define the fault lines along which international conflict is apt to occur."
These studies have made meaningful contributions to the debate on the Clash of Civilizations thesis by examining the nexus between the "Clash" and militarized interstate disputes. However, the exclusive focus on, and usage of, data from the past militarized interstate disputes may not be an appropriate test of this thesis. If Huntington's arguments are correct, the split across civilizational boundaries may first manifest itself in more subtle ways in the near future than an outright military confrontation between states. In fact, if you look at the militarized confrontations of the past, you may not find a statistically significant difference in the frequency of war between countries of different civilizations and those within a civilization. That, however, may not disprove Huntington's thesis. Since the end of the Cold War, we have gone through rapid changes in the nature, as well as the structure of the international system. Under this emerging political environment, states from different civilizations may indeed act differently than before. If they start reacting systematically differently--between the civilization groups--toward, for example, the internationalization of their national economy or democratization, that may support the Clash of Civilizations thesis. If the Clash of Civilizations were to occur because of the changes after the Cold War, then testing the validity of this thesis by using the data from the past militarized interstate disputes is neither sufficient nor appropriate. Instead, this study examines whether Huntington's "civilizational differences" have any effect on the nexus between the internationalization of developing (LDC) economies and the democratization of those countries. More specifically, this article examines whether Confucian or Islamic states react differently from all other states to the increased internationalization of their economy by not allowing as much democratization of their societies as other states.
GLOBALIZATION OF ECONOMY
The volume of international commercial transactions increased dramatically after World War II and many countries' economies became internationalized with an increasing percentage of their GNP attributable to international exchange of goods and services. Countries now trade more freely with each other than ever before. As a result, the pace of political and economic convergence increased dramatically over the past few decades as states appeared increasingly similar in terms of their political structures and economic functions. Moreover, many scholars believe that globalization of economy has weakened the individual states' control over their societies; thus, globalization promotes civil liberties and, eventually, democracy through socioeconomic development. (Bhagwati, 1994; Bollen, 1979 & 1983; Bollen & Jackman, 1985; Cutright, 1963; Cutright & Wiley, 1969; Hannan & Carroll, 1981; Jackman, 1973; Lipset, 1959; Schwartzman, 1998; Thomas, Ramirez, Meyer, & Gobalet, 1979) (1)
Increasing economic integration among nations, some scholars argue, has dramatically reduced the barriers between national economies, undermining the autonomy of national governments and their political control over their societies. (Bryant, 1994; Ohmae, 1993; Rodrik, 1997; Slaughter, 1997; Thomas, 1997) As the flows of capital and information become too great and sudden for any [states] to control, and as various transnational and international actors such as multinational corporations, the World Bank, and the IMF supersede the states' autonomy, globalization erodes their authority.
Complicating the matter that these external factors erode sovereignty, subnational actors (communities, local governments, and regions within nations) also increasingly assert their claims to cultural and political autonomy. (Sachs, 1998) The increased economic internationalization narrows the range of options available to national governments in maintaining strong centralized control. It will loosen the grip of the state over popular freedom by allowing citizens to participate in the decision-making processes concerning vital political and economic issues facing the country.
This, of course, may not mean that economic globalization automatically weakens the states' ability to control their own society. Some "national economies retain a considerable degree of isolation from each other, and [their] national policymakers enjoy more autonomy than is assumed by most recent writings on the erosion of national sovereignty." (Rodrik, 1997:21) Moreover, the same degree of integration into the global economic system may have a different effect on industrialized countries than on developing countries. Developed countries may possess greater control over their capital than less developed countries (LDCs) and hence are better able to deal with the impact of global economic changes than LDCs.
One could also argue that "a gain in power by non-state actors does not necessarily translate into a loss of power for the state." (Slaughter, 1997:184) Globalization enhances the opportunities for those capable of competing in the world markets. At the same time, however, it leaves those who are less competitive vulnerable to external competition. They become susceptible to the negative effects of economic liberalization such as reduced social insurance, job security, and diminished social welfare. As a result, they may become even more dependent on the state, thus increasing the state control. Although globalization may generally erode national boundaries and, possibly, the states' control over the societies, the extent of its impact may vary greatly between states, depending on their economic capabilities and the extent of the internationalization of their national economies.
Furthermore, some scholars reject the claim regarding the universal effect of economic globalization on politics. (Brown & Jones, 1995; Dupont, 1996; Fukuyama, 1989 & 1995; Haggard, 1990; Huntington, 1991; Jones, 1995; Kaushikan, 1993; Scalapino, 1989; Tai, 1993; Tamney, 1991; Zakaria, 1994) They contend that the unique political culture of different nations attenuates the effects of globalization. Hence, the effects of globalization are felt differently among the different "cultural/civilizational" groups. As a result, states' control over their citizenry remains stronger in some countries than others, undermining the impact of the economic globalization. Huntington, for example, specifically argues that Confucian and Islamic states are uniquely different from the rest of the world in the sense that they are uniquely resilient to the liberalizing effect of the economic globalization.
CONFUCIAN UNIQUENESS!?
As Asian economies are increasingly integrated into the global market place, people increasingly are inquiring whether Asian or, more specifically, Confucian states are uniquely resistant to the impact of economic globalization because of their "unique" cultural or, as Huntington put it, "civilizational" characteristics.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's former Prime Minister, often emphasized the need for an Asian alternative to Western-style democracy because of Asia's unique Confucian cultural traditions. (Zakaria, 1994) Accordingly, he developed a so-called "soft" authoritarian regime, which "combined capitalism with an authoritarian political system that suppressed freedom of speech and political dissent while intervening, often intrusively, in its citizens' personal lives." (Fukuyama, 1995:24) Lee noted that this style of political management reflects East Asia's Confucian cultural traditions better than the Western "democratic" model. (Zakaria, 1994:109-126)
Given the Confucian orientation toward governance and the leaders that adapt it for authoritarian purposes, some political scientists argue, Confucian countries lack the appropriate historical and cultural background to support democracy and, therefore, would not be able to democratize themselves. (Brown & Jones, 1995; Huntington, 1991; Jones, 1995; Tamney, 1991) The democratization question often explores the power relationship between the state and its civil society. Democracy means, among other things, the primacy of individual freedom. In addition, democracy involves "the state's increased responsiveness to societal pressures, and the emerging political diversity in turn reflects the increased pluralism in civil society." (Brown and Jones, 1995:104) These developments failed to take place in East Asian countries, some argue, because of the strong, deep-rooted influence of Confucianism. As Samuel Huntington (1991:24) pointed out, it is true that "traditional Confucianism was either undemocratic or...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
