The world has conspired to converge (a flat world) – to share blessings. But what was not envisaged is the sharing of curses! A conspiracy of the convergence of one world! Whose interests and what next? What political agenda for the convergence? What political paradigm to be adopted and whose interests? Before globalization, every county adopted any form of political dispensation and practice. To some, it was all about democracy, proclaiming equality and the rule of law with emphasis on strong judicial system where there is respect for law and social justice. Some nations preferred military government where there is maximum rulership demonstrating authoritarianism.
Some nations simply continued with communism. To them, it was about the welfare of every one. Others practiced the traditional system that gave the entire country to a single family which ran the state as a personal estate! Globalisation is aimed at leading to convergence towards one dominant (political, economic and cultural) system, as put by Fukuyama in the End of History, Sachs and Warner in The Convergence of test, or Jimoh Ibrahim in Conspiracy of Convergence, a process leading to greater interindependence and mutual awareness among economic, political and social units in the world and among actors in general. Those who argue for a convergence of the world argue in sympathy of the need for the entire world to be celebrated as a flat world.
They insist that the celebration of the 21st Century can only be in a world that is in convergence. Thomas Friedman leads the arguments in this regard. Regrettably the mythological paradigm of the conceptualisation of the United Nations is almost being kissed good night today. The conspiracy is to keep the United Nations aside while the discussion is ongoing or to force her to arrange some meetings! There is nothing to demonstrate the defence of Article 2(4) “Prevention of the use of force,” and Article 2(7) “Non interference in the domestic and internal political affairs of member nations.” Specifically, the United Nations’ Article 2(7) provides the argument postulated by Friedman, which almost gives no room for doubt that the conspiracy of the convergence is already a success.
According to Friedman, “distance is dead, the wall has been taken down, and Americans have gotten lazy!” So if one country has “gotten lazy,” then the world is captured in convergence – apologies to Friedman. Does that mean that it was America that was holding the convergence? Pankay Ghemamat wrote much from the influence of business. To him, if we redefine global strategy, there is nothing to suggest that a flat world is in the offering, for “we are more wire, but no more global, or “globaloney.” The policies that we fickle humans enact are surprisingly reversible and international economic integration may be inherently incompatible with national sovereignty.” The main question, beyond the happiness of Friedman, is to ask if the world was connected and if there was integration that was beyond the praxis of the United Nations? Which political system should we adopt? Should we opt for the western democracy of Britain and America, with their followers? Or do we prefer China’s communism, or the kingdom hierarchy of Saudi Arabia? Do we follow the Sheiks of UAE? If we adopt the Saudi political system and the wisdom of monarchies, we simply say goodbye to democracy! Who will protest? Why?
If that is not good enough and we opt for the communism of China, we do not need the strong institutions and we can accommodate corruption as it is in China. We again say goodbye to democracy! But what is wrong with that and where are complaints going to come from? Will the minority impose their political system on the majority? God forbid! Which way do we go? Which one should we adopt? The new convergence cannot operate two different political systems for one flat world. If we do, the convergence is not complete politically. A vote for one political system is key to the unity of the world. An imposed political system is preparation for the Third World War. (God forbid). The barrier of political distance as it stands, leads to the question: Will the conspiracy of convergence (a flat world) succeed?
Comments