On the Flows of Democratization and the Ebbs of Globalization

The author, despite espousing some strong left-wing views, tend to be in agreement with some neo-liberals on the fundamental direction of humanity's future.  It will primarily be defined by two inevitable, unstoppable flows of history.  On one side is democratization, a rise of the empowered masses, bolstered by labor's increasing ability to leverage their economic roles, utilize independent sources of information, and propagate their own organized opinions to large populations via social media.  On the other is globalization, the gradual breakdown of state control over cross-border exchanges of goods, capital, and labor.

First, on democratization.  In the past decades, we have seen too many governments stand against the raising voices of the people, choosing instead to be overconfident in their ability to isolate the "extremists," exterminate them, and manipulate information in their own favor.  In the age of the Internet, this method is failing.  Even for events prior to the rise of the Internet, modern methods of searching for information has meant that generations who have not experienced the devastation of those events will not forget them.  The annual (banned) celebrations of the Tienanmen Square incident is the symbol of this new era.

The public's desire with at least their own definition of democracy is by no means limited to obviously authoritarian governments.  Instead, it is perhaps in what places like Freedom House choose to call "partially free" regimes that such desire, albeit imperfect and with deep cultural flaws, is most readily expressed.  The people, realizing that previous similar efforts have already successfully forced the government to give certain rights, are emboldened to further squeeze the government, using newly gained rights and emergence of a slightly more independent media space to fire up populist support for democratic values.

The ongoing student protests here in Taiwan demonstrates the power of populism in pushing forward the wave of democratization.  People may question their methodology in getting themselves hurt, calling their act of taking over the legislature as undemocratic in itself, but one thing should be clear: their demands have been and continue to be democratic.  They are calling for line-by-line review of the disputed document, a structure to help inform the public about the pros and cons of the document, and public decision-making and consensus on what to do about everyone who will suffer from it.  Their intentions are highly praiseworthy.

Now, on globalization.  There will inevitably be those who suffer from it.  Economically speaking, all locales have certain comparative advantages of production, and economic globalization is meant to bring about the benefits of those comparative advantages to every household and increase living standards.  Some economic actors are bound to be angry from foreign competition with comparative advantages, which they cannot hope to beat.  This has been proven true for not just producers but also individuals, as the author has so unfortunately witnessed in his time at Rakuten.

Economists speak of efficiency, a logic of how to best use limited, finite resources in the right places to get the highest possible returns with the lowest possible costs.  Globalization fits with this line of thinking, but only when the much-ignored overall "human costs" of the project is considered.  This is a task not for corporations, with considerations for profits outweighing those of humane treatments of clients, but governments, with possibilities of holistic views for a balance of interests between creators of economic wealth and the general populace.  To limit firms, it must create policies to help individuals.

And this is precisely what the Taiwanese protests, and many other populist protests around the world should be about.  It is not about putting the interests of one social group above another as the one in Thailand is increasingly portrayed to be,  but about creating welfare institutions that benefit all groups, everyone who would suffer from the side effects of globalization.  Open economies will reshuffle wealth and turn social classes upside down.  Without government effort to appease the losers in these circumstances, opposition will be persistent and increasingly radical, no matter how much overall progress globalization brings.

Past days of protests have given rise to a dark undertone, one that pits the twin forces of democratization and globalization against one another, in what seems a "two-choose-one" scenario.  This is simply unfortunate as it ought not to be the case.  Instead, these two flows of history are concurrent and mutually reinforcing.  Globalization spreads the ideas of democracy and democracy makes globalization more transparent, and hopefully, more egalitarian.  The latter should be the focus of the protests, both as an ultimate purpose and measure of success, as well as its focus of public scrutiny.