3. Political Globalization

1. Summary


INTRODUCTION
The concept of globalization as used in this chapter refers to the multidimensional, accelerated and interconnected organization of space and time across national borders. Specifically with respect to political globalization it concerns an approach to the social world that stresses changing processes as well as a consciousness of the compressed nature of space and time. Political globalization has been much discussed in the globalization literature where the emphasis has been on the decline of the nation-state under the impact of global forces, which have created different kinds of politics arising from, on the one hand, the development of transnational networks and flows, and, on the other, processes of de- and reterritorialization.
The approach to political globalization adopted in this chapter highlights the multifaced nature of globalization, which is best seen as a relational dynamic rather than a new kind of reality. Political globalization, we argue, can be understood as a tension between three processes which interact to produce the complex field of global politics: global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric networks.
There can be little doubt that one of the most pervasive forms of political globalization is the worldwide spread of democracy based on the parliamentary nationstate. Democratic government exists in some form in most parts of the world and where it does not, as in China, there is a considerable demand for it by democratic movements. This is a territorially based kind of globalization and largely confined to the political form of the nation-state. It takes traditional forms as well as constituting a new kind of global geopolitics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the communist regimes in Europe after 1991, democracy has become the universally acceptable form of government. In this sense then, globalization does not undermine the democratic nation-state but gives it worldwide acceptability. The famous thesis of the ‘end of history’ misinterpreted this to be the end of ideology, since the spread of liberal democracy did not lead to the end of ideology but to the proliferation of more and different kinds of ideology. The democratic nation-state in many parts of the world has given rise to very different kinds of political cultures. The globalization of democratic politics has been the basis of the so-called ‘new world order’ that has been associated with the bid for worldwide supremacy by the United States and the legitimation of global wars, from the Gulf War to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.




THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE NATION-STATE, NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP
The notion of the decline of the nation-state in a post-statist world of governance without government – or in a ‘new medievalism’ of regional economies (Ohmae 1996) – should be replaced by the idea of the continued transformation of the nation-state. The idea of a zero-sum situation of states disappearing in a global world of markets or replaced by global structures of governance, on the one side, or as in the neo-realist scenario the survival of the so-called Westphalian state as a sovereign actor must be rejected. States continue to be powerful actors but exist in a more globally connected world that they do not fully control. The following arguments have been given with respect to the transformation of the nation-state under the conditions of largely economic globalization. According to Susan Strange (1996), in the most well-known formulation of this position, states have been usurped by global markets. With the transition from a world economy dominated by national economies to a global economy new economic forces come into play challenging the power of the nation-state. Instead of struggling to gain territorial power over other states most states are struggling to control firms that have become rivals to states. The result is that states have to share sovereignty with other global players. In other approaches, where the emphasis is more on the impact of global civil society the argument is that the nation-state must share sovereignty with non-governmental actors, leading to multi-governance. It is clear that in all these accounts the state is only one source of political power. Much of this revolves around the question of whether states are getting weaker or stronger as a result of global forces. In the case of Europeanization, which is a major area for the application of many of these arguments, at least two positions have emerged: the thesis that transnationalization enhances the power of the nation-state and the thesis of the rise of the regulatory state. According to Alan Milward (1993), European integration, as a movement that has led to the progressive erosion of national sovereignty, has paradoxically rescued the nation-state rather than undermined it. The movement towards transnational authority allows a more functional state system to operate since it is only those functions – for instance, regulation of finance markets and cross border trade – that the solitary state is less well equipped to perform that are transferred upwards to the transnational level. But the result is an unavoidable loss of sovereignty, which does not necessarily translate into a loss of autonomy. According to Majone (1996) the transnationalization of the state in Europe is best seen in terms of a regulatory kind of governance rather than the creation of a new state system that challenges the nation-state. The European Union possesses a large number of independent regulatory authorities, working in fi elds such as the environment, drugs and drug addiction, vocational training, health and safety at work, the internal market, racism and xenophobia, food safety, aviation safety. States have always had regulatory functions; what is different today is simply these functions are being performed at a transnational level through cooperation with other states. According to Robinson (2001) a transnational state has come into existence. This is a multilayered and multicentred linking together on a transnational level of many of the functions of statehood. The nation-state does not ‘wither away’ but becomes transformed by becoming a functional component of this transnational apparatus and a major agent of global capitalism. In this analysis, globalization reconfigures the state around global capitalism, making it impossible for nation-states to be independent.




THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND COMMUNICATION
Communication is central to politics. Nation-states have been based on centralized systems of communication ranging from national systems of education and science, national newspapers and media such as TV as well as national commemorations and popular culture in which national narratives and collective identities were codifi ed, reproduced and legitimated. Most nation-states have been based on a national language, which was increasingly standardized over time. In addition, political parties have been at the centre of large-scale apparatuses of political communication which they have used for social influence. If the Enlightenment public was based on alleged free discussion, the public today is based on professional political communication and mass persuasion through systematic advertising and lobbying: for Mayhew this amounts to a ‘new public’ (Mayhew 1997). However, as argued by Habermas (1989), communication is an open site of political and cultural contestation and is never fully institutionalized by the state or entirely controlled by elites and their organs of political communication. The public sphere is the site of politics; it is not merely a spatial location but a process of discursive contestation.




THE CENTRALITY OF CIVIL SOCIETY
We have seen how political globalization is associated with the changing relationships between state, society and the individual, and the new transnational or global communities, networks and publics which have come into existence and which are in turn driving new forms of politics. Central to understanding these developments is the idea of civil society which perhaps more than any other development has come to symbolize the political potential of globalization, and signals the onset of globalization from below. Before looking at the emerging reality of global civil society it is necessary to give consideration to a related development which we can term the ‘civil societalization’ of politics, a development stimulated, on the one hand, by the spread of governance practices which coordinate policy both beyond the nationstate and in partnership with a range of social actors not traditionally involved in the mechanisms of government, and, on the other, by shifts in the scale of the local, with social movements and grass-roots politics increasingly coordinated across national boundaries. The ‘civil societalization’ of politics both reinforces the idea that politics is increasingly informed by a normative global culture and points to the transformation of the nation-state as a site of political struggle. In other words, the ‘civil societalization’ of politics signifies a commonality of political forms which link the local and the global, the national and the transnational, and mobilizes a range of actors around common political codes: competitiveness, sustainability, personhood rights and social justice. ‘Civil societalization’ has also resulted from the erosion of the state/society distinction inspired by the ‘governance turn’, the concomitant transformation in the institutionalization of social and political cleavages, and the increasing connectivity between global and local political forms. Significantly, ‘civil societalization’ has permeated international relations, and nation-states increasingly choose to mobilize actors in global civil society, and contest politics in the global public sphere.




2. Interesting Items I learned
I searched Sweden political system and constitution.
A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
In Sweden, general elections are held every four years, with the last one held in September 2014. Around 7 million people are entitled to vote and thereby influence which political party will represent them in the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament), county councils and municipalities. People can also influence Swedish politics in other ways – by taking part in referendums, joining a political party or commenting on reports presented by the Government.


THE SWEDENISH CONSTITUTION
The Swedish Constitution defines how Sweden is governed. It regulates the relationships between decision-making and executive power, and the basic rights and freedoms of citizens. Four fundamental laws make up the Constitution: the Instrument of Government, the Act of Succession, the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. Among other things, the Instrument of Government guarantees citizens the right to obtain information freely, hold demonstrations, form political parties and practise their religion.
The Act of Succession regulates the right of members of the House of Bernadotte to accede to the Swedish throne.
The Freedom of the Press Act sets out the principle of public access to official documents in order to guarantee an open society with access to information about the work of the Riksdag, the Government and public agencies. This law allows people to study official documents whenever they wish. Another principle in the Freedom of the Press Act is the freedom to communicate information. Under this principle, everyone in Sweden is entitled to give information to the media that they consider important and that they feel should be made public. The publisher of the material is not entitled to reveal the source if the individual in question wishes to remain anonymous.
The Law on Freedom of Expression, which came into force in 1992, largely mirrors the Freedom of the Press Act, in regards to the prohibition of censorship, the freedom to communicate information and the right to anonymity.

The Swedish system of government, 7 September 2015. Web. 9 November 2015. https://sweden.se/society/the-swedish-system-of-government/


3. Discussion
As we know, democracy is the most dominant political system. Few countries in Europe still has monarchal system like Sweden and Netherland. In korea,  monarchal system existed before 200 years ago. Koreans will be against of instituting monarchal system these days. But country that has monarchal system govern their nations effectively and they also has good welfare system. Only a few people isn't happy with their political system and deny it. So we need to consider that democracy which is used widely has no side effects.