Democracy Beyond Nation-state

W A SINGTON, DC, According to Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, it is impossible to achieve national sovereignty, democracy and globalisation simultaneously. The concept of the political <x0me in the world economy --” recently reviewed also by Javier Solana -- is usable but still flawed.

Roderick's argument, launched in his new book, is that excessive globalisation undermines the sovereignty of democratic nations, increasing their resistance to economic and financial forces that may not correspond to the wishes of the majority within these countries. By this logic, the authoritarian state can function better in a globalized world, because it is immune to electoral concerns.

With less globalisation, democratic decision-making within the nation-state will become less tight by foreign forces, especially financial markets, meaning that its area will be broader. Globalisation and democracy, without the nation-state, is also possible, although Rodrick is sceptical whether democratic institutions can function on a global scale.

Of course, Rodrick does not portray the trilema as a strong and rapid rule. Its greatest goal is to highlight the challenges related to the promotion or preservation of the agreements of these three institutions, in part or in full. But to get Roderick's concept, we need to calculate another dimension: the many levels of government that exist in the world today.

The constitution, managed by national governments, remains the bottom line of international order. But under the nation-states are states (or provinces), cities and regions that may have their own government structures. Above, there are subnational blocs like the European Union and global institutions like the United Nations (OKB). Any discussion of the trilema should consider the different levels of government.

It is true that widespread disappointment with the government is partly a clash against globalisation, which is seen to impose itself on these nations. But another reason for disappointment may be that citizens feel cut off from their national governments.

Yet, the world governments are not that far away, and citizens often feel that they cannot exert significant influence on them. As a result, the tension between democracy and globalisation seems to be less sharp on a municipal level. These municipal governments assisted by international governments tend to be focused on local level concerns such as infrastructure, education and care that are not perceived as being influenced by globalisation.

The opposite of this spectrum is the ruling supernational structures, such as the EU. Not only does the EU often deal with the issues related to globalisation, such as the market; European citizens feel that “Brussels, the remote and breakaway” -- over which they have little influence -- has affected the sovereignty of their nations. This session, illustrated in the Brex vote, can be observed throughout Europe.

The ways in which these dynamics can complicate Rodrick's political trilemate have emerged with Catalonia, where the tension between local democracy and nation-state is even more pronounced than with globalisation. True, many Catalans are more frustrated with the Spanish national government than they are with globalisation or the EU. The same can be said of Scotland, in the relationship with the United Kingdom.

In this context, a withdrawal of nations that deny globalisation, as is happening in the United States under President Donald Trump, becomes even more problematic because it threatens the revival of economic and political pathology that has fostered nationalism in the past.

But what if we adopt a new effort in which local-level democracies and sovereignty are strengthened?

In many countries, if not in all, cities are centers of innovation and progress. Citizens feel closer to municipal governments and are proud of cities, but their pride and identity do not have the damaging quality of nationalism.

If nations hand over some of their competencies to regional governments, to states, or to municipalities, the trilema weakens. Democracy, with its competitive sense of belonging, and globalisation, led by cosmopolitan cities open to the world, can flourish without causing the loss of sovereignty for any country.

The benefits of such an effort can be profound. But there are also serious dangers. While successful Metropolitan areas attract a growing distribution for the country's capital, qualified workers, and innovative capacity, rural areas in general, it is possible to cope with an economic downturn: less job opportunities, hospital and school closures, and deteriorating infrastructure. That trend, as we have seen, produces fertile land for populist politicians to offer simplified solutions, which are rooted in extreme ideology that undermine progress.

That is why it is vital to find ways to help - from the start - those who may feel neglected by the system of things. Here, the nation would take on a big role, although suitable balloons would be hit to prevent the rise of this trilemic. Project Syndicate Periscope