"Globalization" has become a buzz word, and it is arousing the typical disquiet that comes from the prospect of deep and inevitable change. It is the...

"Globalization" has become a buzz word, and it is arousing the typical disquiet that comes from the prospect of deep and inevitable change. It is the word most commonly used to designate the new era that mankind has entered.
For the first time in human history, there is a market economy stretching all the way around the globe, driven by the revolution in production, communication and information technologies. The world is fast and irresistibly approaching unity.
But globalization is not driven by economic incentives alone: there is an irresistible historic force at play that is even stronger than the determination of any government or political party. It is the force generated by new methods of production, and it is giving every segment of society a dimension far greater than that of even the greatest sovereign state. Why else would even the United States, the strongest economic power in the world, be seeking a free trade zone stretching right across the Americas, to build a large enough market to compete against other economic zones - primarily Europe - that are being organized in the rest of the world? This is a process of change that can be speeded up or slowed down, but certainly not accepted or rejected.

Should globalization be opposed or governed?
Some oppose globalization in an effort to counter the inequalities and imbalances it causes. The problem is not how to stop globalization. A return to protectionism would constitute a reactionary attempt - and an over-ambitious one doomed to failure - to halt the powerful productive forces that are driving the human race towards unification.
It goes without saying that mankind can only benefit hugely from the development of a division of labour among the different parts of the world. By tearing down the barriers that hinder the creation of a single world market, globalization increases wealth and produces new opportunities for prosperity. Of course there is a "downside", such as jobs lost through the development of automation, but there are also advantages in new jobs being created.
Thus globalization is not the problem, it is part of the solution. Globalization is a positive force underpinning the solution of the world's primary problems: poverty, marginalization and inequality.
What needs remedying is the fact that the benefits of globalization are spread unevenly throughout the world. Most of the benefits are going to the huge multinational corporations and financial concentrations that dominate the world market, and to the United States, the last of the world's superpowers. Despite its declining power, the United States nevertheless maintains a dominant position. Those who are on the losing end should not blame globalization, but rather the way they are governed.
We can hardly expect the "invisible hand" of the world market to achieve such collective values as full employment, aid to the backward countries, or environmental protection, much less international democracy.
In the absence of effective worldwide political institutions, the growth of interdependence is destined to end up by accentuating inequalities, and breeding international unrest and conflicts.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: what are the conditions for making globalization a positive force for all peoples, instead of leaving billions of people in the grip of poverty?
The inevitable challenge for the forces of progress lies in proving that they are capable of governing globalization. But first, there is an institutional issue that has to be resolved: new forms of supranational government need to be organized at the global level, to pave the way for all the peoples of the world to democratically share in controlling globalization.

The decline of the sovereign state
Globalization has been studied primarily as an economic process, while its political dimension has been largely neglected. The fact that the market has become global while governments have remained national is a contradiction that highlights a significant new development-the decline of the sovereign state.
States are no longer the only players on the international political stage. In their twilight years nation-states now share the limelight with new players: the giant multinational financial and productive corporations, and non governmental organizations.
These are the protagonists of today's "global civil society", a rather ambiguous term that encompasses progressive aspects such as an increase in the volume of world trade, the overcoming of barriers between national markets and the global market, and the emergence of worldwide voluntary movements, along with violent criminal phenomena like arms and drug trafficking and international terrorism.
International mobility allows vast capitals to escape taxation. A decline in the power of a nation to levy taxes brings with it a decline of the Welfare State. When sovereign states decline there is a parallel decline in democracy. Where democratic institutions do exist, i.e. at the national level, there is no crucial decision-making about the future of peoples. Conversely, these decisions are taken at the international level, where instead of democratic institutions, there are centers of political power (the United States) or economic power (the multinational corporations), neither of whom are accountable to the world citizens.
Democracy is therefore lamentably lacking in decisions taken at the global level.

The response of governments
The response of governments to globalization has been to pursue international cooperation, not because it is their inclination, but because they have no other choice. International meetings and organizations are multiplying: they are clear evidence that governments are seeking a solution to problems they cannot solve alone.
The most widespread definition of this way of managing globalization is the expression global governance. This is a formula that justifies the existing world order; it is based on the principle of national sovereignty, and on the dominance of multinational corporations in the world market and of the United States in world politics.
It is a formula that stands as an explicit alternative to the federalist goals of a world government and international democracy.
The assumption that underpins these goals, whose affirmation must necessarily be conceived as gradual, is that globalization cannot be governed by decision-making processes based on the principles of unanimity and veto, as adopted by internationals conferences.

The response of civil society
How has civil society responded? It has tried to strengthen its influence over international politics. The great concentrations of economic power have gained the greatest benefits from market globalization, allowing them to escape the control of governments. And then there are the non- governmental organizations. Some have taken on the role of opposing international organizations and globalization itself, as can now regularly be seen at every international summit meeting.
These are citizens protesting against being excluded from representation within international organizations. Other NGOs are integrated in the state system and are recognized by international organizations. They participate in international conferences in an advisory capacity and exert real influence on negotiations. One wonders, however, how representative they really are: in the absence of international elections it is impossible to measure the degree of consent supporting them.

Towards a World Parliament
The role that the movements of civil society have acquired on the international scene paves the way for new forms of political action, now termed the new diplomacy.
One of the most compelling examples is the alliance between reform-oriented nations and NGOs, which generated enough critical mass to give rise to the ICC.
According to two American academics, Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, who published an article in Foreign Affairs at the beginning of this year entitled Toward Global Parliament, an alliance such as this could give rise to a treaty instituting a World Parliament. It could begin to exist after being ratified by a minimum number of states (incidentally, the ICC will come into force after ratification by 60 states), and remain open to membership by all other states. There is too little space here to discuss this project, so I will simply mention the main task the world federalists should take upon themselves, i.e. the organisation of a NGOs coalition in order to promote a campaign for a World Parliament.
However, I would like to emphasize the difference between Falk and Strauss's project and the federalist one. What the two authors fail to state is that in order to democratize globalization, a global Parliament is not enough.
The experience of democratic regimes teaches us that no parliament can govern a country alone. A government is necessary. So the World Parliament must be seen as a crucial milestone on the way toward forming a democratic government endowed with the necessary powers to enforce the laws approved by the World Parliament.

The role of European Federation
There is no concealing the fact that the plan to bring globalization under democratic control is meeting with formidable opposition, primarily on the part of the government of the United States, which will not let its power be lessened by the international organizations that it belongs to, nor by movements arising in a global civil society. To defeat the opposition of the United States a center of power must emerge with the capability of supporting the plan for a world democratic order. The European Union could be such a power. However, if it is to speak with a single voice, Europe must complete the process of federal unification. With a Parliament elected by universal suffrage, Europe is the laboratory of international democracy. But it could also become the driving force behind the formation of a new generation of global institutions. It is reasonable to believe that Europe will hold sufficient power to relieve the United States of some of their overwhelming world responsibilities, and thus have the authority to persuade them to support the democratic reform of the United Nations.