Volume 3, Issue 2

This article discusses the role non-state actors may play in the democratization of global governance. It is argued that the nature of international power in a globalizing world requires a redefinition of democracy that is more expansive than the traditional notion of electoral representative democracy. Within this context, non-state actors can play important roles in democratizing global governance because they can potentially represent a range of interests in ways that transcend national boundaries. Two case studies are considered: the World Bank Inspection Panel and non-state participation under NAFTA. These case studies demonstrate that while non-state participation can lead to more democratic governance, it can also lead to governance that is less democratic, particularly if corporate actors are allowed to dominate or if important stakeholders are excluded. While the participation of non-state actors in global governance is potentially problematic, the development and implementation of an appropriate policy framework could help to mitigate the potential risks of non-state actor involvement in international affairs. Framing the participation of non-states within the context of democracy is therefore important. Since democratic values are widely supported by powerful policy makers, understanding the participation of non-state actors within the context of democracy would lend support to government reforms to empower civil society actors in ways that could lead to more representative decision-making at the international level.

Social resistance to globalization forces is a dominant feature of the current phase of international relations and global political economy. But there exists no satisfactory theoretical framework to study social resistance from the perspective or context of the peripheral societies. This article highlights the problems of theorizing social resistance from the peripheral context, raises new questions about the applicability of the existing Marxist and critical political economy theoretical frameworks to analyze peripheral social resistance, and proposes an alternative theoretical framework where social resistance is defined as a struggle for survival.

Democracy is generally considered to be the most successful form of government. Yet we remain uncertain about its relationship to modernization. What is essential is not democracy but good governance, according to Alexander Pope's challenge. Political Elasticity (PE) theory provides a way of linking public administration to economic success and, in so doing, explaining Asian economic progress in the absence of liberal democracy. Using terminology based upon PE theory, Vietnam, China, and Singapore, in comparison to Ghana, Russia, and Jamaica, have been successful by manifesting classical democracy, rather than liberal democracy, primary, rather than secondary corruption, and elastic, rather than inelastic decentralization. At the conclusion, the experience of South Korea is presented to show that, in the process of reducing corruption by improving governance, it has been able to achieve globalization success, despite using an unorthodox economic approach.

Long time Middle East expert Alastair Crooke examines the gaps in understanding regarding globalization between Islamic and Western cultures.

Dominant international relations theories fall short of explaining rising interdependencies among sovereign states and the proliferation of the non-governmental activities at both sub-state and supra-state levels. This article surveys the record of such attempts and suggests an alternative approach for the future of globalization studies.

Professor Khaled Hroub's review of Olivier Roy's three books—The Failure of Political Islam; Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah; and The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East—published in New Global Studies (Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2009, Article 6), is interesting but leaves the reader wanting more analysis. This essay is an attempt to do just that.