The advancements in politics and political science is an important aspect of globalisation. The ground works and makeup of the international system political has seen a plethora of new and innovative organisations and institutions. One could look at todays many international coalitions such as the United Nations and its forebear The League of Nations, these two political organisations have been the key components of the birth of the international human rights laws followed by the majority of the free world. Of greater importance is to the soaring number of non state actors which have brought new dimensions and contributions to international politics, this is a breath of fresh air from the many centuries of a monopoly of state powers ruling the international political system.
Through the advances of globalisation people and states are able to communicate with one another at greater speed and efficiency . Information sharing in bygone years used to be a difficult and somewhat expensive task. Mobile video streaming services have increased the quality of communication around the globe, no longer would one have to wait weeks writing letters and attempting the judge people based on their writing but can instantly judge character hearing their voice and seeing their mannerism. Moreover, with the global market being globalised, being able to portray business opportunities and new ideas has led to a greater reduction in the speed of decision making. Positive consequences of this can be seen in health, education and medicine. Medicines which are more effective can be produced and spread world wide with greater speed and efficiency. Furthermore, global political issues which carry great concern can be dealt with and analysed at greater speed thanks to globalisation.
The effects of globalisation on world politics is hotly debated between three groups such as the transformalists, skeptics and and weak globalisers.
Hyperglobalisers and Transformalists view globalisation as being fluid and ever changing. Hyperglobalisers see the power of states being destabilised by non state actors (McGew, 2008). Advocates of this theory point to the increases in technological advancements, pointing directly at personal communication devices as well as the explosion of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. They see these advancements in communication as having a dwindling effect on state power in an international scale. With access to a world wide web and a camera on one device, the projection and ingestion of media has left state powers with less control over the type of media that is being viewed and therefore leaving them with less control over the exposure of media to its individuals. Social media is challenging the power of these states. Furthermore, this can be seen with the Arab Spring in 2010-11. The peoples of North Africa and the Middle East protested the authoritarian regimes in the streets. The leaders of such states Mubarak and Abedine ventured to crack down on physical protests in the streets. However, those protesters that had taken to social media to voice their angst were able to organise a technological revolution by publicising the abuses of their rights on social networks. This ability to undermine the state via social media is the main reason why transformalists and hyperglobalisers see the power of states diminishing due to globalisation.
However, skeptics advocate that despite globalisation, the power of the state on both foreign and domestic grounds has not declined. Skeptics such as Payne argue that “globalisation is largely a myth that disguises the reality of the existence of powerful sovereign states and major economic devisions in the world. National governments remain in control of their domestic economies as well as the regulation of their international economic activities”. (Payne, 2013) In the quotation Payne alludes to the fact that despite the appearance of state power eroding, these powerful states still hold a firm grip over domestic matters and their interactions with other states. Nevertheless, Hirst and Thomson argue that financial strength and power still lie with the great economically developed states and that the developing states are not as connected on an international scale as some would think. Moreover, hyperglobalisers argue that cultures are slowly becoming internationalised and are coalescing into one, skeptics, however, see the exact opposite happening and see that cultures throughout the world are in fact become more distant from one another through new found xenophobia of free travel that globalisation has brought, particularly in Europe. (Spiro, 2000)
Some Transformalists and weak globalisers have taken a middle ground within this debate. They argue that the state is not going to disappear and dwindle in power soon, but that politics itself is become far more “global” (McGrew, 2008). Weak globalisers see that there is a change however the state is continuing and will continue to be a dominant actor in global interactions. In addition to this, globalisation has brought an increased connectivity with neighbours, however they see a great desire in individuals states and peoples maintaining their identities, fearful of becoming one of the same.
Of importance are the concerns and criticism of the effects of globalisation on a political scale. The advantages of globalisation some view as being its greatest disadvantages also. Payne argues that French citizens have not openly and warmly embraced the effects of political and cultural globalisation. This has been in attempts to perpetuate their existing domestic sovereignty and they own French culture. The increased immigration from the completely open border treaties and ties that come with being a member of the European Union, mainly immigrants from mostly muslim countries in North Africa and the Middle East, has had an increased xenophobic effect on the French. The French people feel that the idea of being French has been changing due to the arrival of these immigrants. Furthermore, right wing parties across Europe have been voicing their opinion on this free mode of travel and have spoken out against immigration. This suggest that these parties feel threatened by the increasing influence of different political, religious and cultural influences that harbouring immigrants brings.
In addition the United States are expressing some exasperation towards immigration and globalisation and are attempting to push it back. The citizens of the US have great concerns which stem from economic globalisation. The main gripe with economic globalisation has been the outsourcing that the majority of US based company have been doing since the dawn of globalisation. According to Mutz and Mansfield only 2% of Americans have openly advocated outsourcing labour whereas the overall majority of Americans, 78%, disagree with outsourcing claiming that their jobs are being sold to the lowest bidder in attempts to make greater profit. Furthermore their study showed that the people who have the spoken out the most against outsourcing are in fact those least affected by it. (Mutz and Mansfield, 2013) If there is indeed credence to their theories then the question arises of why outsourcing and globalisation have been received so badly in the US. The main reason for this is thus, the wide spread fear and dispute over globalisation is due to the belief inside America that Us goods have a greater superiority than those made elsewhere. This idea of US being superior has lead towards a coalescing of isolationism and globalisation. In Payne’s view “Americans are increasingly embracing a view of sovereignty that rejects participation in a number of international regimes” therefore there is a correlation between the political views of the majority of the American people and their stances on globalisation. As has been pointed out with the French example Americans after globalisation have portrayed a elements of ethnocentrisms towards other countries, this is also a reason for the mistrust of globalisation.