Globalists versus nationalists?

As a part of the US presidential elections aftermath, there is a discussion about a new political battle between globalists and nationalists. The argument is coming from the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt who is more prevalent among conservative actors. Haidt is, for example, providing a reflective and meaningful analysis about “sacred values” by comparing liberals and conservatives within the American context. However, generalising different political actors into globalists and nationalists is something else, more complicated and very narrow.

There are several reasons to question the narrative and one of them is geographical. The view that the political battle is taking place globally is challenged by the notion that the narrative itself is limited to experiences from the USA and Europe. The relevance for the narrative is thereby “Western” and does not comprehend for example the political development in large parts of Asia, South America or Africa. One explanation is that both the USA and EU are more exposed to the processes of globalization and regional integration. In the time of different crisis, the aspects such as identity, culture and migration are being regarded by the larger numbers of people as more important than socioeconomic or environmental issues.  

During the 90’s and the early globalization period a lot of argumentation was based on the political struggle among the pro-globalization and anti-globalization actors. However, those who often were labelled as anti-globalists were in many cases not against globalization but rather had the alternative views on globalization. This feature can also be observed today among the different political actors, making it harder to divide them into the two categories. For example, in Europe, the socialists are often in favour of humanitarian immigration while being against economic globalization. The liberals are often in favor of the more free immigration policies but against the sociopolitical integration.

The political differences are therefore neither between left and right nor libertarian and authoritarian. Instead, the differences are based on the views on different policy areas. Even politicians as Putin, Erdogan and Trump are, despite how they present themselves, in some degree still interested in global economy, finance and trade. Many Russian nationalists are for example in favour of Eurasian economic union and a free economic zone from “Vancouver to Vladivostok”. At the same time, while being partly in favor of economic rights, authoritarian politicians are aspiring for control over identities. They look upon human rights, liberal democracy and multicultural societies as a threat to their own monopolistic views on national identity based on nativism and myths.   

Furthermore, there are also the other methods to explain the current political dissatisfaction in EU and USA. Both societies are post-democratic in the sense that the economy is more global while democracy and sovereignty are mainly national. In the West, there is a popular view among parts of populations that globalization is a zero-sum game, that loss of influence is equal to being “weak” and that “things used to be better” before. Such views disregard the fact that American-inspired globalization during the 90’s led to the improved living standards in the other parts of the world. For countries which are now competing with the West, such as Russia and China. The EU on the other side is often presented as a paradox, as a democracy without a demos and governance without a government but still legitimized by the majority of the citizens at some degree.

Globalization effects have led to several fantastic developments such as reduced poverty, illiteracy and hunger around the world. Also, there has been a globalization of democracy such as regarding NGO: s activism, for example with the Paris agreement and the climate change policies. At the same time, despite more than twenty years of having processes of global and regional integrations, the state is still regarded as the main institution people are turning towards in the time of crisis. Even if the crisis, problems or challenges are of supranational, regional or global character. In political communication, states are often described as independent, free and sovereign. In reality, this is more complicated since the modern states, such as the EU-states, are more depending on each other by sharing freedoms and sovereignty for different purposes. The absolute majority of the states today are members of the organizations described as international regional or supranational.

Nowadays, it is very common to make statements that both EU and United Nations need to reform, but it is uncommon to hear that the states need to reform. After all both the EU and UN are results of the social contracts between the states and interests of national governments. Sociologist Ulrich Beck has argued that the states, even the nation-states, should become cosmopolitan in the future. Becks argument is that the nations can still exist and that the identification of an individual with a state or a nation is a personal thing, just as a religious identity. The state needs to function in favour of all its residents and connecting people through central aspects such as rule of law, human rights and democracy.

In order to handle regional and global problems and challenges the states have the need to cooperate, integrate and have common institutions. In many cases, due to the consequences of the crisis, there is a lack of political will for sharing more sovereignty, resources and creating new institutions. A way to reduce political dissatisfaction and to empower individual trust and influence regarding supranational governance is to have more democratic rootedness and awareness. Higher degrees of knowledge and understanding about supranational institutions is necessary in order to connect them with the citizens and to motivate eventual reforms for the 2020’s.