This article is about political globalization. The political globalization mentioned in this article is being driven by accelerated and interconnected interdependent organizations. Political globalization is an approach to the social world that emphasizes de-nationalism and transnational processes. Political globalization opens the possibility of new emancipation to some countries, but it also loses autonomy and division to some countries. This political globalization is largely divided into three processes. Global geopolitics, world normative culture and multi-centered networks.
One of the most common forms of political globalization is the parliamentary state based on the parliamentary state system. This means the spread of democracy. The composition of this government is territorial-based globalization. It is a form of traditional political form.
The first is global geopolitics. Although democracy has been universally spread, it has appeared in many parts of the world and has created a different kind of political culture. This diverse culture has made it harder for American hegemony to spread. An example is the invasion of Iraq.
The second step is the world normative culture. This is irrelevant to the global designation department and focuses on human rights and environmental issues. Political communication is no longer limited to the border. Although the state was an important determinant of world norms, the world normative culture now exists beyond the state and is in tense with the state.
The final process is a multi-centered network. This is a form of non-national politics that can not be reduced to a single center, coming from multiple sites. This process is related to the flow of the network, the source of communication, and represents a new relationship between individuals, countries and society. This order is related to the concept of global civil society, which is a controversial concept. For the present purpose, it refers to the political realm between countries and markets in which informal politics takes place. This global civil society has been centered around various kinds of grassroots organizations and social movements such as NGOs. These three dimensions are not separate from one another and exist in a cooperative manner.
Democracy has become universal around the world, it has moved away from the inter-state territory, and the idea of the state has become important. The country is still a powerful entity. However, the expansion of inter-country connections can not be fully controlled at this time. There are two positions on this opinion. The first position is that the new economic forces will absorb the state. Although the national economy dominates the existing domestic economy, globalization continues, the world economy grows, and the nation is trying to take over as a new economic power. That is why the government should share its sovereignty with other world governments. On the other hand, national citizens argue that state sovereignty should be shared with nongovernmental organizations and that the influence of global civil society should be emphasized. In other words, we need to share our sovereignty with NGOs to create multiple governance structures. Both of these arguments agree that the state is the sole source of political power.
At the heart of this political process is communication. The state is based on a centralized communication system, such as television and newspapers, as well as mass culture in which group identity is coded, duplicated and justified. This communication has been the center of politics from ancient times. And now that complex globalization has taken place, the world has more complex and more advanced communication systems than ever before. Through this system, global discourse is achieved. This communication has led to the creation of a large public sphere beyond the scope of the public sphere Habermas advocated. Habermas argues that the public sphere is based on the state, but now the discourse goes beyond the state. This discourse has contributed to creating a normative culture of the whole world.
As we have seen, the nation is changing in response to globalization. It is also a global citizen that plays an important role in this. They provide a new form of national governing model. But it also provides new instability. This is because the separation of the state and the citizen obscures the boundary between the two. It is necessary to further study these problems in the political globalization category.
2.What was interested?
I think that this article will be focused on national level when I look at the title of political globalization. However, I read that the discourse of the civil society level, not only at the national level, It was a very interesting thing that changed my initial thoughts. In fact, political socialization can only be brought about by integration. Politically, it is because of the strength of the power among the countries of the world. But it is civil society that prevents this unilateral integration. They intervene in the country for their peace and freedom. I think that it is a direction that the present political globalization should go to catch the point of a proper meaning between the state and the civil society.
3.Discussion point
In fact, this article is merely a theoretical study and preliminary study of political socialization. Indeed, the process by which political socialization takes place is certainly violent. And the power of citizens to solve it is weak. This is especially true of the great powers of developing countries. Is it true that those who are trying to absorb social integration as a justice and to absorb them with the logic of a strong person? I would like to talk about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment