By David K. Dahn
The modern trends of events in the world have proven that indeed there are forces; operating beyond human control that are revolutionizing the world.
One of those forces, politics, has for time immemorial been ramified through globalization, joining ranks with other forces such as culture, science and technology, economic and security.
This introduces the theoretical concept of political globalization which refers to the “increasing number and power of human associations which influence or govern the world as a whole.” (Held et al 1999: 53)
The same concept, ‘Political globalization’, as perceived by an anonymous scholar, implies that “different movements, sects and political groups adopt similar ideologies, method and different government fundamental concepts such as capitalism, fascism, communism, monarchy, and similar concepts practices”.
The interconnectivity of human activities that has transcended national borders, contends Richard Nathan Haass, is attributed to the fact that “sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary because states cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere.”
Within the new paradigm of globalization, politics is said to be tilted above the state through political integration schemes such as the EU and through intergovernmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Other sources through which political activities shift across national borders are through global movements and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Civil societies harnessed their global efforts by forming alliances with organizations in other countries through motley means including “using global communications systems and lobbying with international organizations and other actors directly without sieving through their national governments.”
The issue of political globalization as a decimating factor for state sovereignty remains a contentious debate within the corridors of academia. In what appears to be a positive re-enforcement of the debate against the eroding of state sovereignty through factors of globalization, Ava Winterbourne insightfully sets eyes on the EU as a classical case in point.
She points out, “the structure of the EU presents a special challenge to sovereignty because, it is a supra-national organization”(Winterbourne 2007).
In proffering a counter-factual argument to this accusation, proponents of the EU claim that “state sovereignty is not lost; it is merely pooled.” Maintaining her un-ambivalent resolve in questioning the erosive sovereignty within the EU states, Winterbourne drives home a gentle rejoinder declaring: “But the fact remains that in the EU member states, the laws of the EU supersede national laws thus infringing on traditional notions of internal sovereignty.”
The facts are overly permissible that global and transnational networks are strengthening by the day in the global political arena, while interdependence between and among states can by no means be side-stepped.
Scholars have observed that there is a compelling factor that has made states to cooperate and stimulate international regimes. As noted by Ofran Badakhshani, the international economy is dominated by transnational cooperation like banks and monetary funds, international environmental organizations, nongovernmental organization and multinational cooperation, therefore, states are bound to alter and in extreme cases, change their policies in order to gain more from the existence of those organizations.
That is to say, states are no longer in position to rely on their own strategies only to maintain their political status in the international political arena.
Given the epoch in interrelated political changes, it is doubtless that political globalization is transforming societies and world order. The boundaries therefore, between domestic matters and global affairs have become blurred. Seeing the galloping wave of globalization and its associated impacts, “politics is no longer, and can no longer simply be based on nation-states and this has made states decision-takers and not decision-makers,” (Held et al 1999).
The author: [email protected]/dahndavid40gmail.com +(231) 0775546683/0886568666