Suchergebnisse

Si les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 ont réellement transformé l'ordre mondial, elles n'ont guère modifié les approches idéologiques des partis politiques de gauche et de droite aux États-Unis. La politique étrangère américaine devrait pourtant tirer les leçons de ces événements, en abandonnant les principes de la Realpolitik tels qu'ils étaient traditionnellement entendus, au profit d'une démarche qui ferait de la question démocratique le principal fondement de toute politique étrangère. Poursuivant ses réflexions sur la nécessité de promouvoir la démocratie comme moyen de lutter contre les effets néfastes de la mondialisation et de l'intégrisme, Benjamin R. Barber nous livre les prémices de ce que devrait être une politique reposant sur un nouveau réalisme démocratique.

"Der Autor versucht, mögliche Ursachen für die Terroranschläge vom 11. September 2001 aufzuzeigen. Er geht zuerst auf die Wirkungen des modernen Terrorismus ein, die eine direkte Folge der Logik des westlichen Gesellschaftsvertrages sind. Zwei demokratische Defizite vermitteln den Menschen das Gefühl, als ob sie noch oder schon wieder im Naturzustand leben, wo es weder Sicherheit noch Freiheit gibt: erstens das amerikanische Demokratiedefizit und zweitens das globale Demokratiedefizit. Ohne den Bezug auf Religion und Kultur gibt es aber keine Lösung. Das vorrangige Ziel einer nachhaltigen Strategie gegen den Terrorismus besteht darin, eine gerechte und integrierte Welt zu schaffen, an der alle Bürger Anteil haben." (Autorenreferat)

Democracy is far less fragile than we sometimes imagine. Although hard to establish, it is remarkably robust and is corrupted only by dint of persistent effort. Yet, as Rousseau wrote of freedom, once lost, democracy is nearly impossible to regain. Today, the forces of democracy face a new source of corruption all the more sinister because it appears so innocuous, often even identifying itself with the liberty it undermines. Having survived the nation-state and in time subordinated it to its own liberal purposes, can democracy now survive globalization? Only if democracy is globalized.At present, the encompassing practices of globalization have created an ironic and radical asymmetry: we have managed to globalize markets in goods, labour, currencies and information without globalizing the civic and democratic institutions that have historically comprised the free market's indispensable context. Put simply, we have removed capitalism from the institutional 'box' that has (quite literally) domesticated it and given its sometimes harsh practices a human face.

Discusses globalization as the newest threat to democracy, arguing that democracy's only hope for survival is to become globalized. It is noted that democracy is currently functioning outside democratic institutions, as evidenced by the globalization of markets in goods, labor, currencies, & information. Release from the confines of regulatory institutions & civic infrastructures has allowed markets to "spin freely in hyper-space, generating a wild capitalism" capable of sabotaging the nation-state & its governing institutions. The new face of globalization is described, arguing that the commercialization of much that has been privatized has resulted in the "infantilization" of consumers, & further disempowerment of civic groups like the neighborhood, church, & family. Obstacles to resistance are discussed, maintaining that a privatized, commercialized, & infantilized populace does not recognize its own powerlessness. Suggestions are made for ways to develop the political will to reject branded identities in order to prevent supplanting the democracy of many sectors with one single market sector capable of dominating all other private/public goods. J. Lindroth