Globalia
Live8 and similar activities contribute to society in a million ways. But one will definitely stand out. They highlight the plight of the underserved. They show that the version of globalisation we are currently living is not leading us all to the promised destination: prosperity.
So is there something wrong with the concept of globalisation? Or is the concept of globalisation being wrongly implemented? In other words, is there something missing?
One may argue that globalisation as we know it today sees its genesis in the roaring twenties when greater investment in advertising helped increase consumer spending. Following the Second World War – even thanks to the decolonisation process - more communities opted to globalise their economic operations and see the whole world as their prospective customer. Today, thanks to other technological improvements like the internet, our world has effectively become what we all call “a global village”.
But if we were to ride Aladdin’s magic carpet would we see one idyllic village, just like the ones you see on post cards? Bono and Friends would plainly say no. And I agree. Though companies have managed to rule the world, prosperity doesn’t. There is poverty instead. The global village from up high is a big city of a few, very few, richly dressed people and many people “living in holes”, as British poet W.H. Auden would say.
Therefore, given the evident failure of the present system, should globalisation be scrapped and a new system dreamt of? Or should we, like real mechanics, thoroughly inspect our machine and then carry out the necessary repairs for an improved performance?
I would rather opt for the second option. I do not like any Che Guevaras running around. Unlike their professed hero they dream of everything and manage nothing. I like to inspect, criticise, and appreciate – something which I shall definitely do in globalisation’s case.
In fact, I think that globalisation is a concept which is not being interpreted to the full.
Let’s say that there is a global village. Now, if there were to be a global village, there must be global citizens. If there were to be global citizens, these must have a way of managing their own affairs. They must have their own politics, their own politicians. But, do you see any of them? I certainly don’t. I only see national and international politics, but no global politics.
The world of business and finance has managed to globalise its operations and not to distinguish between nationality and creed – because a FIAT may be driven by a Palestinian and an Israeli alike. On the other hand, the world of politics is not adjusting to this reality. The global citizen is simply not being catered for in a democratic way. Instead there seems to be an oligarchic system at the helm of Globalia - our global village - made of company bosses and influential shareholders. These in turn control the livelihoods of thousands of people. The equation is simple – the more a company sells, the greater its influence on the economy, the more a company employs, the greater its influence on the quality of life of the global village. Therefore the world is effectively controlled in two ways. One is proper and suits the financier’s role but the other one isn’t.
I firmly believe that the economy should be left flowing freely but I equally believe that people should decide on their own quality of life and not any oligarch instead. People must have the ability to influence decisions. This is why there should be a global (not only international) sense in doing politics - based on the principle of interdependence (that is, any decision taken in one community will affect another community because of the presence of a tightly knit global economic community) and because the basic needs of every human being living anywhere in the world are basically the same.
This is why I primarily advocate a reform of the United Nations where it would be more of United Peoples. The United Nations shall become a true forum where nations can raise issues concerning their community and seek help basing upon the principle of solidarity - a principle which has helped Europe achieve a long-lasting peace. The United Nations shall truly be a place where democracy is preached and practised possibly through a parliamentary system on multiple levels from local to regional to global parliamentary chambers all working with the same goal – achieving prosperity, for all. This would secure all peoples having an equal voice which would not be dependant on economic output but on human rights. The United Nations and its bodies shall strive even further to respect the Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals and attaining a dignified life for all.
Because dignified life is not a commodity but the cornerstone of humanity.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home