Analyzing the Links Between Globalization and Democratization

This essay examines the multifaceted relationship between globalization and democratization, exploring how the increasing interconnectedness of the world influences the spread and consolidation of democratic principles. It delves into the theoretical arguments suggesting that globalization promotes democratization by disseminating democratic ideals, fostering economic development, and empowering civil societies. However, it also acknowledges the counterarguments, highlighting instances where globalization has led to instability, inequality, and the entrenchment of authoritarian regimes. The essay further analyzes the role of transnational organizations, international norms, and technological advancements in shaping the dynamics between globalization and democratization, providing specific examples to illustrate the complex and often contradictory effects of these processes on political systems worldwide. The conclusion reflects on the conditions under which globalization is most likely to contribute to democratization and the challenges that must be addressed to ensure a more democratic and equitable global order.

Globalization And Democratization 1
GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIZATION
Student’s Name
Affiliate Institution
Course
Tutor
City/State
Date

Globalization And Democratization 2
Globalization and Democratization
Globalization is defined as the process where by a business or any other organization adopts
strategies aimed at developing international influence to ensure product and service delivery is
advanced to the international scale according to Ariely (2017, p. 89). In other words, it is a
blowout of merchandises, expertise, information, and occupations across state boundaries.
Economically, it designates an interdependence of states everywhere in the world promoted
through free trade. On the positive, it may elevate the living standards in impoverished and less
advanced countries by availing employment prospect, innovation, and better access to products
(Ashenfelter, Engle, McFadden, & Schmidt 2018, p. 31). On the shortcoming, it might terminate
employment prospects in more mature and high-wage states as the manufacturing of products
traffics crosswise boundaries. Globalization aims are uncompromising, as well as resourceful;
however, the growth of a global open market has promoted big businesses established in the
Western world. Its effect stays diversified for employees, humanities, and small industries
globally, in both advanced and developing states.
The Concept of Democratization
Democratization is among the utmost fundamental conceptions and tendencies in contemporary
political discipline, one whose importance is just commencing to be comprehended by conflict-
resolution experts. On one degree, Alakbarov and Bayar (2018) states that it is a comparatively
meek notion, as democratization is basically the institution of an independent political system.
Conversely, in exercise, democratization has been everything but easy to comprehend, let alone
realize. Democratization is, therefore, the course whereby a state implements such a government.
There is minimum agreement amongst political experts on how that procedure happens, plus the

Globalization And Democratization 3
measures to use in ascertaining if democratization has taken place. Several states have embraced
democratic governments only to watch them breakdown in a military revolution or other
revolution that produces a dictatorial regime in its place. Awokuse and Reardon (2018) affirm
that we do not reason that democracy has occupied foundation until a minimum of three general
elections has been conducted. Another measure raised by several specialists is the smooth
handover of supremacy from one partisan party or alliance to the previous opposition. Such an
evolution is dangerous since it designates that the main governmental powers in a state are ready
to resolve their differences minus ferocity and to consent that they will all pass the time away
from the office.
Globalization and Democratic Simulation
A persistent theory of the post-Cold War period is that globalization could be a promoter for
democratization. Baker and Wojcik (2019) denote that when democratic epitomes swish
crosswise boundaries into dictatorial countries, globalization makes democratization
unavoidable. Champions of this outlook refer to the contamination of democratic evolutions
globally over the past twenty-five years and to the capacity of expertise to enter the full closed
humanities. They point out that even the Orwellian North Korean government has gone
tentatively virtual, although the state’s wider populace has no electric accessibility to the exterior
domain.
However, these general tendencies cannot hitherto ratify a robust and straight link amid
globalization and democratization (Berdiev & Saunoris 2018). The substantiation is
miscellaneous and will linger to be so for a particular time. For each civilization in which a
“people’s power” uprising is facilitated alongside by global cheering squadrons and satellite TV,

Globalization And Democratization 4
a different one is every day turning out to be more pluralistic whereas observing customary
applies. The city-state of Singapore ranked as the most comprehensive on the A.T.
Kearny/Foreign Policy publication Globalization Index about cross-border interaction amongst
individuals, has stayed semi-dictatorial for past 30 years and displays rare indications of grander
democratization. Furthermore, whereas whole areas, predominantly in the former Eastern bloc,
encompassed economic globalization and further open administrative courses at the beginning of
the 1990s, by the close of the period many new democracies were wavering beneath the
encumbrance of globalization, whether due to disparaging economic drifts or more significant
international criminality. It might not so far be thinkable to make an ultimate conclusion on the
link amid globalization and democracy. Nonetheless, keen scrutiny will shed light on where
globalization has facilitated democratization, where it has a subdued drive to grander openness,
and, supposing an escalated pace of globalization, what the many courses of persons and
concepts will mean for the domain’s regimes and civilizations in the forthcoming years.
In the Direction of Transnational models of Democracy
Maybe the ultimate perceptible proof of globalization’s influence on democratization has been
the mixture of democratic models, and the doctrines of human rights that back them, into many
transnational and local establishments. State boundaries progressively unbind the standard of
responsibility for human rights manipulation boundaries, as the 1998 apprehension of ex-
Chilean President Augusto Pinochet in London proved (Cassell, Booth, & Seligson 2018, p. 90).
The ad hoc United Nations warfare criminalities panel that was summoned for previous
Yugoslavia in the first 1990s was stretched to Rwanda in the mid of the period, foretelling a
broader move to transnational integrity.

Globalization And Democratization 5
Democratic ideologies are also remodeling local establishments. The European Union, formerly
a financial community, currently needs a democratic regime as a necessity for belonging and
upholds democracy in its mutual foreign policy. The Organization of American States, formerly
a consular medium for equally democratic and non-democratic regimes, currently works
aggressively to reinstate justice when it is jeopardized in affiliate countries. The organization of
African Unity, also a customary diplomatic assembly, made attempts to forge a local human
rights program molded the Helsinki course afterward in Europe (Cervellati, Naghavi, & Toubal
2018, p. 147).
Nevertheless, the course has its restrictions (Ezcurra & Manotas 2017, p. 2593). Local groups
espouse ciphers of democratic exercise where a minimum of democracies previously subsists or
where the principal and most celebrated economically dominant countries are democratic. In
these circumstances, the encumbrance of the Republican mainstream is occasionally enough to
assist in convincing non-democratic countries to liberalize. But then the tendency stops shortly
where the civil continuum takes in an equivalent sum of democratic and non-democratic
countries or where dictatorial governments are prime (Gozgor 2018). In Asia, for instance, the
multiplicity of administrative systems has chiefly kept back democracy and civil rights off the
counter in the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) assembly and the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
A more likely but more low-degree drift has been the evolution of international non-
governmental establishments dedicated to upholding democracy and guarding human liberties.
These assemblies, which typically initiate and have their headquarters in Western states, institute
footholds in dictatorial countries, though they are rarely capable of operating there minus

Globalization And Democratization 6
substantial limitations. Consequently, in areas where dictatorial styles stay strong most especially
in Asia and the Middle East the only systems devoted to disseminating democratic principles and
consolidating human rights are non-governmental (Han 2019, p. 24). For the likely prospect, the
most significant opening of building global democracy and civil rights governments in these
areas will be in a steady crossover course, as NGO systems pull regime administrators into
various administration and NGO negotiations and other unceremonious schemes.
The Contributory Impacts of Globalization
In areas missing a prevalent and obvious pledge to democracy, Western legislators and non-
governmental assemblies trying to endorse grander dogmatic liberalization have put their
conviction in the subsidiary impacts of globalization. In this perspective, Huo and Ouyang
(2018) denote that globalization propositions an enticement and switch. A dictatorial regime
approves to a universal system to gain doles of one kind but is required to consent the political
costs that come afterward. Strategies fashioned in concurrence with this concept center on two
facets of globalization; transnational trade liberalization and communications. Not remarkably,
the concept likewise upholds two valued American philosophies; that free markets and
democracy are the stimulus and concern of each other and that the hike of technology cannot be
averted.
Therefore, for more than ten years consecutive U.S. governments have alluded that mainly
sustaining trade with China, and precisely inspiring China’s entrance into the World Trade
Organization, would afford a back-door path to political change. Observing WTO guidelines
would need the government in Beijing to offer more apparent and responsible regime and would
reinforce the concept of the statute of law, two rudiments in contemporary democratic structures

Globalization And Democratization 7
(Kato & Tanaka 2019, p. 187). Furthermore, overseas communications corporations would gain
equality with regime corporations in China, disseminating their technology and relaxing the
government’s regulation over the interaction between China and the external domain, other than
among Chinese people themselves.
The rationality, convincing in the long run, has temporary restrictions. In states with permanent
dictatorial governments, front-runners are more probable to consent to legal change for real
motives to advance economic situations through augmented transnational trade provided that the
public does not regard the changes as conceptual submission. Frontrunners might likewise
contemplate changes relating to cross-border trade to be tranquil to contain since the primary
concentration is on viable programs that predominantly affect overseas business. While it is
likely to barricade off local populaces in the initial phases of such a change, the costs of trade
liberalization and marketization ultimately need the government to espouse a more
comprehensive methodology (Morgenbesser 2017). But economic liberalization could similarly
aggravate complications that appear to overtake legal transformation determinations and even
inspire universal support for the dictatorial or semi-dictatorial regime. Russia’s entrance into the
global economy has, in the thoughts of numerous Russians, exacerbated formal exploitation and
financial delinquency. Provided that these drifts are supposed to be sturdier than changes, people
are probable to stomach less than common law as a temporary elucidation.
Furthermore, several of the economic supremacies dignified to go into global trade regimes,
most notably China, may themselves affect the rubrics leading those governments. Hitherto,
universal trade guidelines have fundamentally been inscribed by Western democracies, whose
pooled economic supremacy has put would-be players in the role of suppliants. However, the

Globalization And Democratization 8
entrance of more “variegated” economic supremacies regimes dedicated to market change but
not primarily to Western-style democracy might amend these establishments. At the minimum,
the connection amid trade predilections and clear courses might dwindle marginally, as might
support for obvious political conditionality connected to trade, in the manner of the European
Union. At vilest, universal trade establishments could be rent with league conduct, not different
than occasionally perceived in the United Nations.
Expertise and Dogmatic Directness
Technology’s influence on democratization is probable to be more instantaneous, though not
enough in itself to influence political revolution (Morselli 2018, p. 650). Scrawny economies,
alongside with regime opposition, have limited the blowout of technology in numerous Middle
Eastern and particular Asian countries and will for the immediate prospect. However,
technology’s initiation has added a different facet to the projections for political revolution. The
most dramatic incidents of universal opposition in contradiction of dictatorial governments in the
ancient years have presented prominent roles for technology. In Tiananmen Square in 1989,
Chinese protestors conversed with each other and the outer domain by facsimile. In Bangkok in
1992, Thai experts, labeled “cellphones masses," synchronized anti-military protests with
apprentice front-runners and each other by cellphone. In Indonesia in 1998, anti-Suharto
opposition was principally coordinated through the Internet.
However, for all these instants of great political spectacle, technology’s ultimate assurance in
endorsing absolute sincerity lies in the daily interaction of civic and dogmatic life. In dictatorial
civilizations, the internet varies from print and electric mass media, since no regime-dominated
media is in existence for the government to use as a counterbalance. From its initiation, the

Globalization And Democratization 9
internet has been an open form of communication than every other, at best for those able to
access it.
Revolutionizing dictatorial countries regularly desire to develop the use of technology for
economic growth but furthermore to restrain people from using it for radical drives. Doing both,
conversely, is ever more challenging. China’s determined strategy to form a state high-tech
information set-up has stimulated local communications industry development of 30%-50%
yearly from 1989. Simultaneously, Rohlfing and Schafföner (2019) denote that the regime
registers all internet consumers, is capitalizing in technology to observe and riddle virtual
communications, and controls general subjects for online debate. But Chinese internet operators
have learned how to evade several of these restraints using alternative servers, an indication that
technology could typically outsmart attempts to regulate it.
Currently, China’s about 18 million internet consumers are a minor portion of the country’s
populace. But their figure is snowballing increasing to 75% from 1997 to 1998 and later
triplicating in 1999. More important, political dissertation in China has stretched in spite of
national efforts to repress and inhibit it. In the average run, Sacramento (2018) asserts that the
impacts of regime determinations to regulate the internet will be contingent in part on whether
China could sustain brusque economic growth. If it ensures, internet evolution is probable to
overpower efforts to adjust it. Ultimately, the prediction is promising. In states where technology
is developing, regulation of universal mass media might substitute between the regime and the
people, but the benefit will generally go to the people in the very end.
Shortcomings for Democracy

Globalization And Democratization 10
Nonetheless, globalization could similarly hand dictatorial governments an advantage.
Governments that assent to economic changes very regularly permit prospects they are assured
they can regulate. If the instantaneous effect is promising an enhanced economy, better access to
up-to-date expertise and products the government’s standard legality might be braced by the
discernment that it has provided the enhancements. Paradoxically, globalization could
consequently prolong the permanency of the government, at best in the short run.
Samy Soliman and Schymik (2019) denote that undesirable economic periods that are accredited,
decorously or not, to globalization may likewise give dictatorial frontrunners a lift. When
cynicism with economic change sets in, Western legislators’ firmness on the connection amid
change and democratization could be used to dictatorial benefit. In the Asian economic
watershed of 1997-98, Vietnam and Laos, which had initiated very diffident inevitable changes
to complement marketization, ditched these inevitable changes when their trade with the states
smashed the most by the predicament failed. The decline of some of the area’s fastest developing
economies those associated most diligently to the West was regarded as a cautioning of the
jeopardies of globalization. Hard-liners obscured improvers in the first post-crisis eons or
supplanted them entirely in the political organization.
Globalization has similarly assisted sustain dictatorial governments by nurturing autonomy in
certain non-Western countries (Schmitter 2018, p. 36). In the course of the Asian economic
watershed, anti-Western opinions splayed even in states well on the path to democracy, such as
Thailand, when shattering drops in money prices were commonly accredited to exploitation by
Western merchants. In more dictatorial nations such as Malaysia, frontrunners twisted this novel

Globalization And Democratization 11
autonomy to their benefit by salting their partisan platforms with anti-Western and anti-
globalization pomposity and depicting themselves as national victors.
Technology as well has served the autonomist repercussion in contradiction of globalization.
Democracy advocates have long foreshadowed the “CNN effect,” in which TV conveys global
happenings into the living spaces of individuals whose frontrunners would wish to block such
exposure. In Thailand in 1992, when the military regime barred information of Bangkok
boulevard protests on state-owned TV channels, reporting of the happenings was conveyed to
populations via satellite TV, producing a stimulating pressure for the opposition. In current ages,
dictatorial governments have used TV to their benefit. In 1999, satellite television conveyed
NATO’s bombing of the Chinese consulate in Belgrade into the households of metropolitan
Chinese, who were fast to retort with public demonstrations. In the course of that same event
autonomists likewise made use of the internet. At the peak of the demonstrations, Chinese
hackers hacked into the website of the U.S. consulate in Beijing, in a peculiar present-day similar
to the 1900 Boxer Rebellion.
Different “universal” leaders
Possibly the ultimate significant effect of globalization on dogmatic transformation, and one of
the utmost challenging to predict, will be the manner it profiles different civil and societal
classes, predominantly in dictatorial states. In current years social researchers have hypothesized
that globalization, in particular, its capacity to advance economic situations via trade will assist
generate different intermediate ranks that will, in turn, upsurge force for democratic
transformation. There is a certain accuracy to this overview, but it restrains the duty of leaders in
a dogmatic revolution. However robust universal force for democracy may be, a democratic

Globalization And Democratization 12
change ordinarily needs the endorsement, blatant or inferred, of a substantial section of the
governing directive. The basic query is not whether globalization could assist serve up more
street masses demanding transformation, but whether it could transform the very nature of
selected assemblies.
Ciphers are developing that globalization could be doing exactly that, with various impacts for
democratization. In states that highlight modernization and economic development centered in
part on overseas trade and venture, twofold changes are reforming selected political philosophy.
The leading is the upswing of technocrats, predominantly those skilled in universal economics,
in administration and political affairs. In China, for instance, technocrats are progressively taking
grander accountability in the governmental structure. The Communist Party of China has even
instigated to convert them to improve its legality. Technocrats are not, of course, spontaneously
democratic improvers, but their stimulus may assist make the regime more responsible and
transparent, helping in placing the footing for a more democratic structure.
A more remarkable tendency is the escalation of viable novel leaders in the supremacy structures
of various dictatorial and democratizing civilizations. Several made their influences in viable
contemporary viable segments that profited impressively from globalization. Pursuing power
anywhere they could get it; these novel leaders habitually pack the senates in states where the
policymaking subdivision had conventionally appreciated high-class control (Schmitter 2018, p.
36). In relating different communications skills to bond with electorates, they have stimulated a
contemporary momentum for proletarian politics. Even though usually regarded as improvers,
they might likewise exemplify globalization’s absence of directive. As these novel leaders have
taken authority, accusations for systematic exploitation have augmented.