Since the BREXIT vote in the United Kingdom and President Donald Trump’s election victory, informed political analysis have been focused on the rise of populism in Europe. Fears have been rife on the possible rise of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen in the upcoming election in France. Many populist leaders have had significant media coverage and what they say and advocate for, has been posited by some to ‘resonate’ with the people. Leaving aside the argument whether such rhetoric resonates or not, one can clearly see that the broad implications of the rise of populist leaders (even if they do not obtain political power in the country) has a significant impact in shaping the direction of a country's domestic policy. Such populist rhetoric also has the possibility of destabilizing the centripetal forces within a ruling party and may influence it to detract from ascribing to an inclusive domestic policy stance.
The optics of the populist movement have reshaped and altered the global public discourse on political behavior to a level as yet unseen since the end of the Cold War. Utilizing social media many around the world have vented their frustration on Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’. Another case in point is when Seb Dance, a Labour MEP sitting behind Nigel Farage (who was a BREXIT campaigner) held up a sign reading ‘He’s lying to you’ with an arrow pointing towards Farage.
Gone are the days where one can put his/her eggs in the basket based on ‘credible’ polling. 2016 saw many political decisions going the ‘wrong’ way, despite being broadly touted otherwise. Among these one could cite the FARC – Columbia peace deal (the first one, which went to a referendum) as well as Matteo Renzi’s defeat in a referendum to alter the constitution as notable cases. What is really happening? Is the world witnessing the rise of populism and is this going to permanently detract and destabilize the movement towards globalization?
To better examine and contextualize these questions one first needs to define globalization. Understandably globalization is among the hardest of lexicon to define. Its meaning differs because globalization contextualizes many aspects of the world we live in today. The World Economic Forum outlines globalization in a simple yet lucid manner.
“In simple terms, globalization is the process by which people and goods move easily across borders. Principally, it's an economic concept – the integration of markets, trade and investments with few barriers to slow the flow of products and services between nations. There is also a cultural element, as ideas and traditions are traded and assimilated.”
The question that begs to be asked is whether globalization has in fact been detrimental to the world? Why has the backlash against globalization and a neoliberal institutional world order in general, increased over the past few years? Does globalization face a mortal threat with the rise of populist leaders? Although these questions are undeniably difficult to tackle without more understanding of the policy rhetoric and actual policy implementation by such populist leaders; one cannot refrain from questioning the present political situation of the world.
Since Donald Trump’s election the U.S abandonment of the TPP, Trump’s expressed desire to drop out or at least alter the NAFTA and his infamous ‘Muslim ban’ are symbolic of his desire to follow a neo isolationist foreign policy of “making America great again.” The BREXIT campaign saw a majority of voters expressing their desire to have more control over immigration and over domestic policy making, especially with regard to the economy. Theresa May’s recent comments suggest that a hard BREXIT involving the U.K leaving the EU's single market is the most probable option once article 50 is triggered in March 2017. Despite the Prime ministers desire to position the U.K as being more open to the world the underlying irony as stated by the prime minster earlier last year is that “BREXIT means BREXIT.”
So do these factors among others entail a move against globalization? A poll by Yougov.com in 2015 showed that the public perception of the benefits of globalization as benefitting them is reducing. In a background where OXFAM reports that ‘the world’s eight richest billionaires control the same wealth between them as the poorest half of the globe’s population’ one can see significant asymmetrical income division around the world. As the rich get richer those in the middle class are being increasingly squeezed. This sentiment of resentment appears to play into the hands of populist leaders who have tapped into these fears, fashioned an enemy/enemies responsible for all the peoples’ economic woes and thereby obtained public support despite own their controversial comments.
Establishment candidates have been routinely scorned for either not understanding the people or double dealing so as to obtain personal benefits. Xenophobia in the west has burgeoned since the migrant/refugee ‘crises’ began on European shores. Hate speech and racist comments have reinforced divergence in society; resulting in increasingly fractured communities dotting the European continent as well as America. Parlance of this nature appeals to certain sections of communities which have supported the rise of populist leaders.
As American commitment to the structure - it established since the end of the Cold War - wanes; the possibility of China obtaining that position is a likely prospect. Chinese president Xi Jinping’s resounding defence of globalization and open trade in the WEF is one such example. However with regard to the human rights regime one could foretell that China will certainly not play a leading role. In a recent article Professor Yong Deng notes that China will not seek to be a traditional revisionist power having risen to the height it has today, due to the forces of globalization and free trade. According to him, China would remain “deeply committed to economic globalization” but not to further the existing international regimes such as the human rights regime or to put a significant stake in ending conflicts by military action in the Middle East. Thus globalization in an economic sense would receive Chinese support, especially through the OBOR but not in any other dimensions of globalization.
Although American commitment to military alliances and defense pacts was at one stage in doubt, I do not believe that Trump may rescind U.S commitment to that extent. The statements by James Mattis and Rex Tillerson seem to suggest that US foreign policy would not alter to the extent once assumed under the leadership of President Trump. Especially as south East Asian countries and Japan desires to balance China with American influence (in the backdrop of island-building by China in the South China Sea), one could assume that American presence in south East Asia may also not diminish to a great extent. Tillerson’s recent visits to Seoul, Tokyo, and Beijing appear to reflect a continued desire by the American establishment to reassure allies and work with China. However the Trump promise of “America first” continues and a neo isolationism is still discernable to many foreign policy observers. Thus globalization in an economic sense has lost the leadership it once had from America. This can clearly be deciphered in the G20 finance ministers meeting where US refused to endorse “open trade” any longer.
As America attempts to adopt a neo isolationist foreign policy (yet engage with allies whom it has to reassure), and populist politics rise in Europe one could expect more multi-lateral trade agreements to face increasing pressures from political leaders. The demand for benefits from such multi-lateral trade agreements, especially in the short term would rise. So on the whole, I perceive China’s desire of assuming the mantle of ‘globalizations hero’ being counterpoised by anti – Chinese sentiments being voiced on the global stage; especially with regard to its investment ‘beneficiaries’ dotted along the belt and road initiative.
In terms of global trade; despite the possibility of ups and downs in the short and middle term, the likelihood of a full blown trade war between China and U.S.A coming to the fore is unlikely. Thus globalization may sustain damage from the populist movements in Europe and elsewhere but I do not believe that such movements will gain as much traction as we saw in 2016 and if they fail to win elections they may eventually lose the limelight. This does not mean that they will fade from being a significant political force in shaping domestic policy making; in fact they may seek to alter public perceptions of contentious issues relating to trade, welfare and immigration. Thus establishment candidates and front runners in recognized parties may want to increasingly take into account the problems and difficulties that ordinary lower middle classes face.
Be that as it may, economically the world is too connected. This economic connection has been strengthened with the increased use of technology, especially social media. Therefore to answer the title question; populist movements may alter the centripetal forces of globalization but as the “women's march” and vociferous condemnation to trump’s Muslim ban has showcased, globalizations once started is certainly a hard train to detract.
Guest Commentary - Shakthi De Silva
