Democracy and Globalization
-Ernst Ulrich Weiszsacker, Germany
Over the next 50 years we will be faced with
two major challenges: re-inventing democracy, so to speak, and re-adjusting the course of
technical progress. First of all, as far as globalization is concerned, I have made the
empirical discovery that the word is quite new. Recently, I wrote a letter to the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (upmarket German daily –Ed.) to enquire when the word
'globalization' initially surfaced there and, lo and behold, it was first used in 1993 and
not before. And now simply everyone uses it. Is that just coincidence? Or, indeed, a
linguistic joke? It's neither, since there are three sound reasons behind this.
FIRST, THE STEADY trends towards a more
liberal world economy and the reduction of tariffs, although this trend is already quite
old and would not suffice to justify such a break with the linguistic past. As early as
1993 the biggest peaceful demonstration ever to take place was staged against GATT
(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and consisted of a march by Indian farmers' wives
on Banglore to protest against the international patenting regulations which had been
drawn up following the Uruguay round of GATT trade negotiations. The women feared they
would be deprived of their right to re-grow seeds if a seed patent was in the hands of
international companies.
The second driving force behind globalization
is the development of the Internet. The "Net" led to an incredibly close network
of contacts among companies as well as suppliers. However, this is only one of 200 facets
of the connection between globalization and the Internet. The third reason for the sudden
increased awareness of globalization was the end of the bipolar world order. Until 1990,
the East-West conflict was the dominating political factor. Everyone defined themselves in
some way or another in accordance with this; not least those who represented investments
in the market economies underlying the democratic countries. For such people, it was
important to produce proof that democratically organized market economies were far
superior to inefficient authoritarian communism in social as well as economic terms. This
strategy was a "roaring success" until the time came when the East-West conflict
was resolved in favor of the West, at which point it was no longer necessary to furnish
proof. Suddenly, investment representatives were in a position to tell heads of companies
that "they should look after their shareholders a bit better." The term
"shareholder value" popped up in the German language just s spontaneously as
globalization had. Suddenly, investment returns were announced through the use of the
imperative. At the same time, the relationship between companies and the investment world
underwent a major transformation. Until 1990, people invested money through borrowers'
banks. Then some people realized they could maybe save half a percent by investing in
international capital markets. And, suddenly, those that did not do so lost out
financially. Even the Adam Smith Institute was a bundle of enthusiasm, printing "Adam
Smith –the hero of globalization" on its Christmas cards. The whole world has
struck lucky and ther4e was euphoria in the air – among the winners.
So much for the description of today's world;
now, on with the question of what this has to do with democracy. First, the good news: in
a globalization context, democracy as achieved one victory after another, including
African and Asian countries as well as Eastern and Central Europe. And now, the bad news:
democracy as we knew it underwent a face change after 1990. Up until then, the state had a
powerful negotiating position as regards capital investment and the market. An ideal
system of government is a democratically organized market economy which strikes a social
balance between the strong and the weak. All had gone well when the markets and
democracies were more or less confined to the same geographical area. Then, suddenly, the
market spread out to cover the whole world, geographically speaking, while the state
continued to function at national level. The inevitable result was that the market bean to
play ping-pong with the various states involved, playing one off against the other; for
example, by means of "damaging and rival tax systems"
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the
gap between rich and poor has widened as time has progressed. In the early 70s, the gap
between the incomes earned by the richest 20% and the poorest 20% stood at a factor of
approximately 30. By 2001, this factor had increased to 74, and although the percentage of
poor people continued to rise – despite the fact that we were experiencing phenomenal
economic growth – the number of millionaires and billionaires increased at a much
faster rate. One could say that this is the challenge facing us: we're clashing with a
globalization which is responsible for creating a large number of losers, although it has
increased our net output to a large extent as well s producing a number of winners and
winning regions. Yet the aforementioned losers are powerless to influence the course of
events, although they turn out to vote, simply because globalization issues cannot be
resolved at national level.
The challenge which emerges from the
description of today's world is this: we have to re-invent democracy; designed, initially,
for the nation state, where it worked quite well. The question now is: what kind of
worldwide democracy is necessary in future? In this respect, I would like to propose a by
no means static framework of ideas, based on three under lying principles.
The first principle relates to the existing
democratic system of national government. Nations would work together – with respect
to international environmental agreements, for example, human rights conventions, the
international criminal court and the many other things which can be regulated by mutual
agreement among individual countries. All these concepts would elevate to an international
plane elements which had functioned at national level. Such developments are of
fundamental importance although they have one serious weakness – they are very far
removed from the people. Democracy's real virtue, the ability to mobilize the population,
is then no longer effective and it is understandable that there is a general feeling of
weariness towards democracy. And yet we need democracy at national level, since this is
the only legitimate basis for international negotiations of this kind.
The second principle relates to the private
sector which, essentially, creates the market surplus. Nturally, however, the private
sector has a mixture of good and bad elements. While some companies genuinely believe like
'wild animals', there are many other small, medium and big sized companies who, through a
combination of careful planning, bold measures and innovative ideas, create a market
surplus. And in order to preserve an aura of democracy, the global public must learn to
punish the 'wild animals' and reward the good ones. For example, it should not be
economically viable to strip away natural resources and use child labor. In such issues,
we should take care not to adopt patronizing or paternalistic attitudes and strive,
instead, to strike a fine balance. The important thing is to recognize that a moral
problem exists in the first place.
Then there is the third principle: society at
large. Society at large means all of us together, especially when we are active in our
local church, in Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Greenpeace or the WWF.
These are the international organized social groups who can exert pressure. Attac, for
example, is an interesting group which makes specific protests against globalization.
Without the pressure exerted by Attac it is difficult to imagine any real changes taking
place in political and economic spheres. And so I can imagine, therefore, that in the
course of the next 50 years these three basic principles – in addition to a fourth or
fifth as well, perhaps – will serve as a foundation for a global democracy and a
society firmly rooted in all sections of the population.
In addition to the gargantuan task of
re-inventing democracy, we also have to re-adjust the course to overcrowding the earth.
The so-called ecological footprint is an indication of how much space we use up for
prosperous way of life: our clothes, food and cars. A person in Germany, for example, has
an ecological footprint amounting to four hectares: multiplied by 80 million Germans, this
results in 3,200,000 sq. km. Yet Germany only covers an area of around 370,000 sq. km.
This means that Germany is hopelessly overpopulated in relation to footprints which also
means that we have to start making major cutbacks at some central source. They very least
we can do is halve our consumption of natural resources; by reducing carbon dioxide, for
example. If we halve the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per year, then we would soon
be able to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentration. We must at least halve the amount
of our consumption of natural resources in order to achieve "sustainable
development".
At the same time, we need to double the
current level of prosperity. One look at the poor regions throughout the world is enough
to make anyone realize that this is the most urgent moral challenges we face. We have to
multiply 2×2 in order to reach a factor 4. In other words, we have to husband scarce
natural resources at least four times better than we do now and that is what I mean when I
talk of re-adjusting the course of technical progress.
In essence, the industrial revolution was the
history of how to increase labor productivity by a factor of four, ten and even twenty. I
do not want to cancel that effect; however, in order to enable technical progress to
continue making great strides rather than just limping along it needs to increase its
resource productivity in addition to the labor productivity; initially also by a factor
of10. This is the best we must achieve, which brings us once again to the question of how
we can start going about this. we need to change our conscious way of thinking and we also
need to change the underlying economic conditions. Marketing factor-4 technology has to be
worthwhile – cars which only use up 1.5 to 2 litres of gas/patrol per 100 kilometers
instead of 8 litres, like we have just now. These are technical and economic issues. At
the same time, however, it's the politicians' job to make prices reflect ecological
reality. And that's the crux, because this is virtually out of the question at national
level in today's democratic system when it comes to remaining internationally competitive,
because if a country pursued such a course on its own, a neighboring country would
sabotage its price system and make a profit on that. Which only goes to show that we need
"global governance" more than ever, in order to point technical progress in the
right direction. This is yet another task of daunting proportions, but we must start to
tackle it.
The writer, Prof. Ernst von Weizsacker,
is a Social Democratic member of parliament and Chairman of the Enquiry Commission
"Globalization of the world economy" in the German Bundestag. He was head of the
Wuppertal Institute and is a member of the Club of Rome. Text courtey:Deutschland
EN4/2002. Embassy of Germany, Kathmandu: chief editor.
The future Pinault
Foundation, a grandiose for contemporary art
-Sylvie Thomas-Barbe, France
A place of legend is being converted
from industry into art. In place of Renault automobile plant, on Ile Seguin island, in
Boulogne-Billancourt, in the Hauts-de Seine department west of Paris, from 2006 there will
be new museum as vast as the Pompidou Center. The lines of the old building will be
preserved, giving the construction the appearance of a liner made entirely of glass,
floating above the Seine and reflected in the river.
The plan chosen by Francois Pinault, the
businessman who set the basis for his foundation, was designed by the Japanese architect
Tadao Ando who has already built numerous museums in Japan and the Pulitzer Foundation for
art in Saint-Louis in the US. A view of the model makes us realize just how grandiose the
future museum will be. It will be built on a piece of land covering 3.2 hectares and have
a surface area of 32,000 square meters spread over three floors. It will be 300 meters
long and 123 meters wide at its broadest place. The main building will be 28 meters high
and the two upper galleries will be nearly 40 meters large. On the second level, 7,000
square meters will be devoted to temporary exhibitions.
In addition to its beauty and its size, the
project is remarkable for its functional rigor. As Francois Pianult wanted to create a
museum that was open to the general public, access to the Foundation will be from all
sides, which should make it one of the French capital's new star venues. You will be able
to enter the museum from the park and from the promenade along the water's edge on Ile
Seguin Island, from the footbridge spanning the Seine between Bolougne and the island as
well as by the boat coming from Paris. Riverboats will have a mooring place in front of
the museum.
These entrances will be centralized in a main
base, a circular atrium which will be reached after crossing a large esplanade and around
which there will be information points as well as an auditorium and a media library. From
this point of arrival, visitors will be directed towards the part of the museum that they
have chosen to visit.
The microcosm of galleries will float above
the atrium. 15,000 square meters of works of art will be exhibited there and each of them
will be displayed in adapted lighting and in a suitable frame. Creating a link between the
main base and the galleries, the water garden, made of many gardens and including
courtyards and patios, will house sculptures, temporary exhibitions areas and open-air
theater.
The whole has been designed to offer the best
possible way to peacefully contemplate the works which should thus benefit from a suitable
setting, as Francois Pinault's collection, which is one of the finest in Europe, includes
sculptures, paintings and photographs by the greatest contemporary artists. There are
sculptures by Modigliani, Miro and Picasso and monumental works such as Jeff-Koons Split
Rocker a 12 meters high half-dinosaur half rocking horse covered in flowers. There is also
a Mondrian from 1925, Tableau Losangique 1 as well as works by Rauschenberg, De Koonong,
Rothko, Pollock, Warhol, Ryman and Yves Klein, photos by Cindy Shermann and videos by
Viola and Nauman not to mention one of the Degas' most famous sculptures, the Little
Fourteen-year old dancer. A thousand works that Francois Pinault will chose to offer up to
be admired by all, will be selected for the Foundation.
The plan may appear widely ambitious but its
creator has the stature to carry it out successfully. He is the founder of the
Pinault-Printemps-Redoute group and owns some of the best-known brands in the world,
fashion houses such as Gucci and Yves Saint-Laurent and Conforama, Christie's and the
Chateau Latour Bordeaux vintage wine. He also own the Rennes football club in the west of
France and the Marigny theater in Paris. Francois Pinault is at the head of an empire of
15 billion euros, making him one of the most powerful French businessman. |
