- + Explonential joined Central London Debating Society
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are London Underground staff justified in their strike action?
- + Tracy Barret voted on the debate Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS
- + Thebabeofbengal edited the debate Are women superior to men?
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Loretta voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Golmindalin joined Debatewise
- + Jiwoo Cj 1127 voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Plally7 edited the debate Will mankind make it to the next century?
- + Arnavnarian joined Debatewise
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Crissieboy joined Debatewise
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
GLOBALISATION IS DETRIMENTAL TO DEMOCRACY
We live in an increasingly globalised world. International institutions such as the UN, the EU, the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF are now hugely significant actors that have a massive influence on our daily lives. It is said, however, that these institutions are not democratic and often limit, control or constrain the actions of a nations democratically elected government. The 20th century has often described as the century of democratisation, but has globalisation now meant that and further democratic progress is unlikely?
Globalisation is detrimental to democracy
Yes, because... Democratic accountability
The UN; the WTO; the IMF; the ILO; all of these are hugely significant actors that influence our lives. But none of these bodies can be held accountable to the people. Our lives are being increasingly dictated by unelected bodies. Even the EU, despite its elected parliament, cannot be called democratic. Whilst it has a democratically elected parliament, their powers are highly limited. The real power lies with the European Council and the European Commission.
Globalisation is detrimental to democracy
Yes, because... the means contradicts the ends?
Consider the technological, ideological, and political aspects of globalisation, they encompass measures that are employed by countries (particularly those in the West) to 'spread' democracy in other parts of the world. Yet, are these measures legitimate? How far should international and external actors go in 'invading' a particular non-democratic state? The use of military forces, and the overarching international organisations, both have been brought about by globalisation, are used in the worldwide drive of democratisation. Isn't the intervention of a state and thereafter, the 'forceful' implementation of a democratic system, itself a non-democratic mean? The disregard of state's sovereignty in the process is an irony. More importantly, the 'spread' of ideology - in this case, democracy - is made possible again by globalisation. The extent to which this should be promoted remains a contestable topic. This activity is carried out mainly by countries in the West. How is it itself an event of 'democratic nature' if only the West is consulted?
Globalisation is detrimental to democracy
No, because... Sovereignty remains with national governments
Even though unelected bodies do play a prominant role in world politics, the real power remains seated with national governments. In the EU for example, governments are still able to opt out of certain agreements if they feel it would be against their national interest to commit to it.
Globalisation is detrimental to democracy
No, because... Democracy on a new scale
In a globalised world, there are more prospects for democracy than ever before. Whilst it may appear to be a threat to national democracy, globalisation has brought with it the possibilities of global or regional democracy. This process is already apparant in institutions such as the EU, where a European Parliament is becoming increasingly powerful. Instead of hindering democratisation, globalisation has opened up new paths for which it can take.
Globalisation is detrimental to democracy
No, because... Bringing democracy to new parts of the world
Globalisation has given governments accross the world more incentive to become democratic. As the world is now more interdependent, with states reliant upon each other, the rewards for becoming democratic are greater. A developing country, for instance, is far more likely to receive international assistance if it is democratic than it otherwise would.
Vote on this debate: Globalisation is detrimental to democracy
Modified:
30 Apr 2010
Point 1. Democratic accountability
The UN; the WTO; the IMF; the ILO; all of these are hugely significant actors that influence our lives. But none of these bodies can be held accountable to the people. Our lives are being increasingly dictated by unelected bodies. Even the EU, despite its elected parliament, cannot be called democratic. Whilst it has a democratically elected parliament, their powers are highly limited. The real power lies with the European Council and the European Commission.
Point 2. the means contradicts the ends?
Consider the technological, ideological, and political aspects of globalisation, they encompass measures that are employed by countries (particularly those in the West) to 'spread' democracy in other parts of the world. Yet, are these measures legitimate? How far should international and external actors go in 'invading' a particular non-democratic state? The use of military forces, and the overarching international organisations, both have been brought about by globalisation, are used in the worldwide drive of democratisation. Isn't the intervention of a state and thereafter, the 'forceful' implementation of a democratic system, itself a non-democratic mean? The disregard of state's sovereignty in the process is an irony. More importantly, the 'spread' of ideology - in this case, democracy - is made possible again by globalisation. The extent to which this should be promoted remains a contestable topic. This activity is carried out mainly by countries in the West. How is it itself an event of 'democratic nature' if only the West is consulted?
Point 1. Sovereignty remains with national governments
Even though unelected bodies do play a prominant role in world politics, the real power remains seated with national governments. In the EU for example, governments are still able to opt out of certain agreements if they feel it would be against their national interest to commit to it.
Point 2. Democracy on a new scale
In a globalised world, there are more prospects for democracy than ever before. Whilst it may appear to be a threat to national democracy, globalisation has brought with it the possibilities of global or regional democracy. This process is already apparant in institutions such as the EU, where a European Parliament is becoming increasingly powerful. Instead of hindering democratisation, globalisation has opened up new paths for which it can take.
Point 3. Bringing democracy to new parts of the world
Globalisation has given governments accross the world more incentive to become democratic. As the world is now more interdependent, with states reliant upon each other, the rewards for becoming democratic are greater. A developing country, for instance, is far more likely to receive international assistance if it is democratic than it otherwise would.