How Important Were Domestic Political Pressures in Shaping

Introduction

It is with no doubt that democracy is one among the most successful ideas in the current political era. Since the late 1990s, there has been a wave of electoral turmoil evident in Europe mainly witnessed by sprouting of populist movements somewhat led by offbeat characters (Hutter et al., 2018). In defining democracy, minimalistic ally, is a regime whereby the most crucial offices of the government are filled via contested elections on the basis of universal suffrage. A couple of democratization waves in the past have stimulated the fight for democracy since the French and American Revolutions, more specifically in the 20th Century whereby democracy has witnessed a global value.

It is all too easy for one to become obsessed with the domestic political turmoil. Democracy is under siege globally. Close to all revolutions witness rapid changes with the digital revolution being no different. Destruction of democracy is already evident in Thailand, Russia, Egypt, Venezuela and Turkey and as of late being undermined in Poland and Hungary (Bochsler and Hanni, 2017). In France, Emmanuel Macron (the centrist president) is fighting record-low approval ratings. In the UK, the Conservative Party is stumbling over Brexit. That mentioned, it is with no doubt that democracy is in crisis bringing us to two nations of interest (France and Britain) that we will use in our study in investigating globalization and democracy.

Globalization relationship with political democracy

There is a fundamental yet limited perspective on globalization as noted by economists, in which the consequences extend way beyond the political arena to the social and cultural aspect (Winzen, 2012). Globalization has in some instances been linked to with asymmetrical yet simultaneous effects for nations and the people. Reality check is that there are some winners and lots of losers. It would be critical to note that globalization has led to the creation of two worlds co-existing in space despite the far apart aspect. As noted by Kubler and Kriesi (2017), there doesn’t exist alternative forms of government with better options in managing the way the citizens live together. Democracy makes it possible for the people to attain individual freedom in addition to self-determination. The government via the citizens, is then able to make decisions that are in the best interest of the public in general. However, with time it has turned out that democracy isn’t ineluctable (Kubler and Kriesi, 2017).

Brexit-Real threat to globalization

The Brexit party politics could define UK’s foreseeable future. As 2018 came to a close, it was still unclear whether Brexit would be implemented, or whether there would be the need for a new referendum that would be called prior to solving of the issue. The Brexit’s politics could be termed as the post-Thatcher, or post-Cold War Conservative aimed at the nation. Democracy brings the notion of a political community governing itself. Therefore, there exists a congruence assumption between recipients of political decisions and political-decision-makers, which then brings about the perspective that there is an ultimate binding between democracy and a delimiting territory. It is pretty obvious that globalization puts a challenge on this assumption as globalization of political, social, cultural and economic relations transforms to interdependence way above the national borders therefore, putting an end to the link between territorial states and national political communities (Fontana, 2019).

The EU accounts for more than half of UK’s exports and imports which is in line with 15% of the nation’s GDP. Brexit is a major pullback to openness of trades, globalization and labor (Carami, 2017). It is quite clear that the economy of UK has diminished in performance since the EU referendum. Productivity in the UK is suffering. Immediately after the UK’s referendum on EU’s membership in June 2016, there were mixed reactions of what would happen, globalization also at stake. In broader macroeconomic terms, the growth of the GDP in UK has slowed though remaining positive after the vote. This brings about the idea that growth of the GDP has primarily held up due to the international trends but revealing weaker internal trends. The undesirable signs of economic health have been confirmed by productivity stagnation. The worrying part is, there is a widening margin between the output per worker in OECD nations and Britain.

Macron’s crisis in France

Considering the aspect of majority rules, Macron emerged the winner in the French presidency battle with 66% of the votes. However, close to 100,000 protesters of the Yellow Vest succeeded in forcing him to repeal his decisions. This made Macron back down on taxes and hiking the fuel prices. In spite of this, the chaos didn’t end. Surprisingly, the same kind of thing occurred with Margaret Thatcher (the former British Prime Minister). She had imposed poll tax which ignited the wrath of the protestors taking to the streets of London in opposing the move (Hutter et al., 2018). At that time, she said that the people elected her mandating her with making decisions and thus there wouldn’t be the need to waste money on polls. In the end, she was made to resign before her term came to an end; democracy upheld though after a rough tide.

Emmanuel Macron made promises of a European renaissance when coming into power. However, he has found himself in a difficult scenario at the helm of a nation that is rapidly turning out ‘the sick man of Europe’. If by any chance, the sad passions the young president has warned of a couple of times happen, then close to the entire continent will be affected, and not just French fate (Fontana, 2019). There are upheavals all across Europe ranging from Britain’s Brexit, Putin’s outlets of propaganda and Matteo Salvini (Italy’s far-right capable man). Definitely, the relish cannot be quantified. It hasn’t been long since Macron put a brand on himself as the arch enemy of Salvini (a leader whose policies are ever targeting immigrants, rule of law and opponents in the political arena). Macron is isolated, weakened and ultra-defensive.

A whole social group feels clashed against one another: rural vs urban, employed vs unemployed, qualified vs unqualified. Though such kind of gaps are evident in many countries, however, in France they are on an existential dimension due to the ideal of egalitarianism that has a historical link to the republic. Most of the French are of the notion that reality does not reflect on the entitlements they are meant to have. In 2017, when Macron was running for the office, he made promises of a “revolution” (funny enough, it was the title he had on his campaign book). Now things have gone haywire with the president looking paralyzed as he provides a new fodder for populists and extremists across the globe.

Globalization challenge

In the current era of globalization, phenomenon of politics is no longer influenced by the dynamics and structures linked to the domestic sphere. They are constrained and shaped by institutions and processes beyond the state of the nation. In this sense, globalization could be conceived as ‘de-nationalisation’, which features policy making power reallocation to authorizations above the nation state.

The process of ‘de-nationalisation’ entails adjustment of power away from the nation-state governments in three different aspects: Up to supra-national firms, down to sub-national authorities, and sideways to firms exercising independence. Upwards ‘de-nationalisation’ translates to reduced electoral responsiveness. Downwards ‘de-nationalisation’ leads to a strengthened governance capability in areas that are functionally integrated. Sideways ‘de-nationalisation’ illustrates the power of policy actors in gaining essence in sectors such as financial services and markets (Kubler and Kriesi, 2017).

Responsiveness and responsibility under siege

Parties are mandated with being the representatives of the citizens. According to Peter Mair, the rising electoral success of anti-establishment movements and growth of political malaise observable in many democracies is somehow a result arising from the widening margin between ‘responsiveness’ and ‘responsibility’. Responsiveness could be termed as the aspect of leaders and political parties responding sympathetically to the voters’ short-term demands, opinions of the public and the media. Responsibility on the other hand entails the leaders and political party’s necessity in taking into account the long-term requirements of the constituents in addition to the claims of the audiences (Achen and Bartels, 2016).

In December 2018 in France, the fires, confrontation between the police and protestors for a fortnight wasn’t surprising even though there is the availability of peaceful and legit ways in the system of democracy. The French were putting the blame on the Russians for having stood behind the wave of fake accounts that were inciting, pushing the angry crowd into protests. Ignoring the online conspiracy theories, chaos is in contradiction with the norms of democratic practices. We all know that it is through the ballot that the majority vote gets to choose the president leading to government formation. Of course, chaos totally contradicts the barriers on freedom of expression with only guarantee of dictation stances by force.

The UK is no different, according to a March 2019 article by Kieran Devine (co-founder of Connective Realities), there is a conflicting opinion regarding the Brexit between Britain’s different age groups. The elderly in UK (65 years and above) are generally displaying a negative attitude towards the EU than their fellow younger citizens. Chances are high that those who lived World War II are far more likely to oppose the Brexit (Esser and Umbricht, 2019). The puzzle is, why would the older generation that have had the chance of experiencing the World War first-hand be on the forefront in getting rid of Britain from European Union? (An institution that has aided in bringing peace in UK for more than seven decades). A simple answer would be, the war generation could be possessing more welcoming attitudes towards the European Union than the immediately following recent generations.

Democratic tension between responsive and responsible government

From a theoretical perspective, the modern-day political malaise that has developed in most of the established democracies is a result of a rising tension between two aspects that are inherent in the current democracy as a government’s model (Rovira, 2012). On one side, democracy is a government model in the normative sense which then implies that it entails a series of principles and norms from which it is able to obtain its legitimacy. More specifically, the normative appeal of democracy strongly relies on the aspect of popular sovereignty; whereby governments that exercise democracy are supposed to give a listening ear to the demands and grievances of the citizens.

France is a nation of revolutions, with the active controversy on the concepts of choosing between power by the majority, a foothold of the Western leadership system. The battle in Paris was linked to another struggle, the vote on Brexit at the world’s oldest parliament, Westminster (Achen and Bartels, 2016). Most of the British voted exit from the EU, though most of the politicians are of the thought that exiting the EU will harm the higher interests of the UK’s future. In spite of that, the final say rests lies on the people since democracy has to be upheld.

Minority compromised

In Britain, parliamentarians could emphasize on a softer Brexit or even request for a 2nd referendum. Either of the options needs a firm political will. However, Theresa May is hopeful in avoiding a 2nd referendum, as there would be the possibility of heightening the Conservative split risk. She is firm on her ground and wants to show the laughing world that her policy unites the UK after the June 2016 poll. Whatever the occurrence, none of the parties is presumable in the evaporation of its disagreements. The referendum’s primacy is on the risk of underestimating one of the traditions of representative parliamentary, as the MPs mandated with representing all the constituents and not merely the vocal (Esser and Umbricht, 2019).

Democracy has a long history and there are improvements accorded to it. As a theory of the past, legislators have come up with lots of amendments to it in the bid of ending allegation that it is dictatorship that majority practice (Christmann, 2014). The questions arise, what rights do the weaker category in the society have? Most of the introduced legislations are in contradiction with the ballot box democracy with the aspect of the governance of the majority, for instance ethnic and religious groups, imposing women’s, in the attempt of protecting them from the ruling majority’s dominance. In the modern-world, there is an issue as the public opinion isn’t the people’s opinion but can be manipulated by parties that want change of the game’s rules, for instance foreign powers. This sparks the rage of the angry minority who then think the solution can be attained in the streets flipping the formula and actions of the majority “ruler”.

Conclusion

The future of our democracies can be monitored. Democracy doesn’t have to tear nations apart. As illustrated in the case of United Kingdom and France, the rise of populism in democracy has been accredited to globalization which has led to widening of the margin between responsibility of the government and electoral responsiveness. So sad that crucial decisions are taken ‘backstage’ ignoring democracy. But what does globalization mean for the future of established democracy? Is it to mean that there is a crisis in democracy and that the political arena is blurred? However, one thing that should always hold in place is respecting the voice of the people. Following the Brexit uncertainty for Britain and Macron’s unfulfilled promises, much needs to be done and sovereignty of the people catered for.

References

• Achen, C. H. and Bartels, L. M., 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections do not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Bardi, L., Bartolini, S. and Trechsel, A., 2013. Responsive and Responsible? The Role of Parties in Twenty-first Century Politics. West European Politics 37( 2): 235– 252.
• Bernhard, L. and M. R. Steenbergen, 2017. Crisis and Populism in Europe: Explaining the Electoral Strength of Populist Parties in the Post-Bailout Landscape of the Eurozone. Under Review.
• Bochsler, D. and M. Hanni, 2017. What Democracy do we want? The Problematic Focus on the Median Voter. Swiss Political Science Review 23(3): 270–278.
• Böhmelt, T., Kouby, V. and Bernauer, T., 2013. Civil Society Participation in Global Governance: Insights from Climate Policies. European Journal of Political Research 53( 1): 18– 36.
• Caramani, D., 2015. The Europeanization of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Caramani, D., 2017. Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government. American Political Science Review 111( 1): 54– 67.
• Cheneval, F. and F. Schimmelfennig, 2013. The case for Democracy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 51(2): 334–350.
• Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Büchel, F., Wettstein, M., Wirz, D., Schulz, A, and Esser, F., 2010. Populism in the Press: A Comparative Analysis of ten Countries, under review.
• Esser, F. and Umbricht, A., 2019. The Push to Popularize Politics: Understanding the Audience Friendly Packaging of Political News in six Media Systems Since the 1960s. Journalism studies 17( 1): 100– 121.
• Fontana, M.C. 2019. Europeanization and the Weakening of Domestic Policy Concerntation: Comparing Policy Sectors in Belgium and Switzerland. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
• Greuter, N., 2014. Accountability Without Election. The Attribution of Responsibility in the Financial Crisis 2007–2010. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
• Hutter, Swen, Hanspeter Kriesi and Guillem Vidal, 2018. Old versus new politics: The political spaces in Southern Europe in times of crises, Party Politics 24(1): 10-22.
• Kubler, Daniel and Hanspeter Kriesi, 2017. How globalization and mediatization challenge our democracies. Swiss Political Science Review 23(3): 231-245.
• Kuhne, R. and C. Schemer, 2015. The Emotional Effects of News Frames on Information. Processing and Opinion Formation. Communication Research 42(3): 387–407.
• L. Diamond, M. F. Plattner and C. Walker, 2016. Authoritarianism Goes Global. The Challenge to Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Landerer, N., 2015. Mass Media and Political Decision-Making. Analyzing Mediatization in Switzerland. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
• Rovira Kaltwasser, C., 2012. The Ambivalence of Populism: Threat and Corrective for Democracy. Democratization 19(2): 184–208.
• Schemer, C., 2012a. The Influence of News Media on Stereotypic Attitudes Towards Immigrants in a Political Campaign. Journal of Communication 62( 5): 739– 757.
• Winzen, T., 2012b. National Parliamentary Control of European Union Affairs: A Cross-National and Longitudinal Comparison. West European Politics 35( 3): 657– 672.