Globalisation – a menace in disguise
Laila Sohail
Thursday,July 05,2007
There were demonstrations against the menace of globalisation across Germany recently. Many of us do not even know what exactly this menace is. Globalisation is a phenomenon that links people all across the world to each other, dissolving geographical, cultural, social, industrial and economic differences. It enforces a uniformity that is devoid of difference. Just as the depression, the Cold War era, the Space Age and the roaring 20s, the period of today is called the era of globalisation.
Globalisation has numerous angles and every day, the definition seems to be broadening rather than narrowing, ranging from political to social concepts. In the economic sense, globalisation generally refers to the increasing international trade and foreign investment. The term is even used at times as another name for capitalism or the market economy. The advantage of a global economy based on free trade and capitalism is obvious. The benefit is based on the law of comparative advantage. Every country becomes more prosperous if it invests more on producing and exporting what it does the best. The absence of trade barriers allows such free trade to exist so that it puts each country to the advantage of only producing what it is good at and importing the rest from other countries around the world at a cheaper cost than it would have taken for its production locally.
Yet, despite its apparent statistical advantages, the debate on globalisation remains the hottest one of its times. The reason for this outspoken conflict or vast difference in opinion is the difference between what “best” is to various people. It is true that globalisation may provide the most economical solution, but what if it is at the cost of cultural or social disadvantages? The phenomenon of globalisation promises equality, but what if in fact the phenomenon is not applied in an equal way? The real debate is not on globalisation as a phenomenon, but on its non-economic aspects and uneven applications.
The foremost concern is how advantageous is globalisation to poorer countries such as Pakistan. How would they be able to survive in a world that is governed by a simple rule, “Be the best!” What if you are not? Well then, take from the best! This crude rule abolishes the fact that in reality more than half the countries in the world are developing ones with major problems such as development of education and health sectors still pending. How would these countries ever compete industrially with countries that are far superior? The answer is surprisingly provided by the supporters of globalisation. If the world does indeed accomplish a globalised state, then the developing countries would be able to develop at a faster rate and thus become developed countries with the aid of free resource movement.
The other issues are more social in nature. As far as humanity can be traced, various civilizations have existed, following their own separate customs and maintaining their own identities. This diversity has not always been advantageous, in fact, it has often been the cause of conflict and war, yet it seems that the world has come to [or had come to in this instance] an unspoken mutual acceptance of this coexistence. The fundamentals of globalisation question this very acceptance. It is not merely a process in which goods may be easily transferred from one to another part of the world. It is a process of transferring ideas. With these ideas, there is also a transfer of culture and thus the very identity that we have stood for so long is not only under threat, but unnecessary under this blanket of uniformity.
It is from these observations that the argument against Wwesternization arises. With the current importance of media and its continuous growth, it may be the sole determinant when it comes to the idea of a common culture worldwide. In other words, the strongest media wins the battle in which victory would mean global prevalence of one culture and defeat would mean the end of all others. In Pakistan, we can see the Western culture gradually taking over like a fungus that would keep growing till it engulfs our very existence. Loss of identity is met by an even bigger concern. If a single culture is to prevail in the world, what or more precisely “whose” culture would this be? The answer is obvious.
Many analysts claim that this cultural change is actually a process called “cultural evolution” and there is nothing unnatural about it as it is simply the culture changing with time. However, this explanation is hardly satisfactory. Since time moves at an equal pace, it is hard to explain why only the developing countries and not the developed ones are going through this “natural process”. Yes, culture in these countries may be changing, but whether it is through “evolution” or “invasion” is a matter of opinion.
The real problem is not globalisation but its unfair application. Those supporting it stand for equality and uniformity, yet what they ask for is uniformity confined to a specific region, equality only for certain counties. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a major example. The countries within the WTO are apparently practicing globalisation. The question is what kind of globalization? Free trade is only restricted to a part of the globe while the rest of it has to undergo severe trade barriers in order to trade with a member country of the WTO. Thus, uniformity does not stay uniformity and equality transforms into a monopoly where exploitation is the rule.
The anti-globalisation protests in Pakistan show that being a developing country, Pakistan also faces all these relevant threats and may become prey to the predator of globalisation. Unfortunately, it does not have a choice in the matter as it only plays a silent role in this well directed play; a play where there is no audience, and the lead roles are played by the developed countries.
Thus “anti-globalisation” is actually “alter-globalisation” because it is not a declaration against the advantages of globalisation, but only an outcry against its unfair aspects. What we call globalisation is an illusion we like to believe in, an illusion promising equality and justice. It is a bubble we like to blow up around us to provide explanations of the unfairness of the world. We should be aware though that the bubble has to and will pop, and when it does, those in the developing countries would be the ones hardest hit. For it is not an explanation, and definitely not a solution. All that it is, is a menace and that too in disguise!
http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNew...05769&catid=11