It is
clear that many of the developments related to the “Covid_19” pandemic have led
to a change in the economic and political facts and data related to the debates
on the status of the state, sustainable governance and the role of
individuals..etc. Those discussions that revolve in their entirety around the
dialectic of the fundamental contradiction between the globalization of the
economy on the one hand and the nationalism of politics on the other. It is the
dialectic that can be expressed by the following problematic question:
To what extent can the state maintain its position and functions? What
is the possibility of achieving sustainable governance?
In
principle, it can be said that one of the most complex dilemmas that prevents
access to sustainable governance, is still closely related to the problematic
of contradiction in the development of both economics and politics. Logically, the economy is moving somewhat towards globalization, as
economics has historically always been based on market principles (except the
Soviet era). Those principles that were soon transformed under
globalization from nationalism to global, while the principles of the state as
political sovereignty remained oriented towards nationalism to a large extent. On the basis of these changes the logic of global markets has been
breached to the logic of the sovereignty of nation-states, where
politics is still mainly practiced locally or nationally, unlike the economy
that has become global oriented.
Here, the division or contradiction appears in the relationship between
authority, responsibility and accountability to some extent, so that we find
that there is a global economic authority versus a national or local political
responsibility in which the use of authority is concentrated. This
contradiction hinders the possibility and effectiveness of achieving and consolidating
the principles of sustainable governance at all levels. Therefore, in order to reconcile between
domestic politics and the global economy, the point of balance between them
must be based on sustainable governance, which is based on the principle of
interdependence between political and economic concepts on the one hand, and
the principles of transparency, accountability and participation on the other, here the individual (the political individual as a citizen or the
economic individual as a consumer, a saver, an investor) can be The judgment or
equilibrium by which that lost balance can be achieved. Which we
need at the level of the possibility of achieving sustainable governance.
Where
logically, both political and economic forces try to win over individuals to
their side, whether on the economic or political level. The individual is, on the one hand, a voter, and on the other, a
consumer, a saver, an investor. At the level of the economic field, despite
all the problems of inequality and distributive justice, the individual still
holds the initiative, based on his being the basis, goal and reference of
commercial forces in all their forms. Also on the political level, the
individual citizen is the basis of political authority according to the democratic
process and the electoral vote, as it still has a significant impact on the
level of determining political orientations.
Based
on this, the individuals on whom the political and economic systems are based
must assume responsibility, engage and participate in the process of creating
that influence and pressure to confront the monopolies and control of
capitalist, security, political, media and even academic elites, in order to be
the mainstay in achieving accountability, participation and transparency
policies on which governance is based. Where governance policies
should not be limited to structural reforms or protest in the streets and at
the ballot box. Rather, the sustainability and process of governance must be
supported by directly holding monopoly forces accountable through a culture of
consumption.
That
culture that emphasizes the importance of moving from the concept of the
political individual (as a citizen) only to the concept of the economic
individual (investor, consumer, saver) as well, which is based on an approach that
prioritizes the social, ethical, humanitarian and environmental dimensions,
when economically shopping.
For example, according
to the logic of the producer-consumer-investor relationship, pressure and
influence exerted by an individual through a culture of consumption (on the
basis of boycotting companies, products or investments) can play a major role
in countering the influence of TNCs that support political corruption. Or face
their policies based on trying to evade their social responsibilities, not to
mention their direct investments and activities that violate human rights, or
that increase climate change and prevent environmental protection.
It is also
realistically, much of what is required of national governments or
international institutions, its implementation and commitment depends on the
degree of awareness and pressure on the part of public opinion(ie individuals). Thus, it can be said
that spending or saving money, or directing it to one party, or withholding it
from another, may lead to the achievement of the desired goals. Because
spending or saving may lead to the desired ends. This logic or direction of direct
action may be better and more effective than traditional forms of political and
economic expression.
Where in light of
global markets trying to evade the rules and restrictions of accounting, the
role of the individual appears as a force to be reckoned with. It
can no longer be ignored that individuals all over the world are now turning to
political shopping more than towards electoral voting. Thus, participation in
the economic boycott process and the trend towards political shopping (so to
speak) is a positive indicator that indicates that the political activity of
the individual (consumer, saver and investor) has begun to move in the right
direction. It where the increasing activity and influence of economic forces, and
the corresponding unclear political will, results in a growing realization that
political shopping is a more effective form of sustainable governance.
Therefore, it seems
that political shopping has begun to replace traditional citizenship, as it is
the tool that enables the individual (as a citizen, investor, consumer or
saver) to impose accountability and correct public policies in a more serious
and practical manner. Accordingly, in light of financial greed,
political indifference and the absence of responsibility among many
technocratic elites and market forces, individuals can assume responsibility
and participation in achieving sustainable governance by adopting political
shopping policies (whether at the level of consumption,
saving or investment) as a strategy or a new form of effective accountability.
To sum
up,
in practice we must admit that while the social contract that binds peoples and
governments is becoming increasingly fragile, , it seems that the pressure and
influence of individuals is making a real impact in the face of monopolistic
forces and corruption
That
effect, which governments or even some international institutions cannot bring,
and which may be fundamentally unwilling to do so. For
example, as a result of the revolution in the world of communications, governments,
transnational corporations and giant media are no longer the only ones in
control of the knowledge and events industry. Indeed, it is possible for any
individual (with minimal technical knowledge) to be the source of the news as
well as the maker of the event that has a local and global impact at a very
rapid pace that exceeds the speed and pace of time taken by governments to
effect a change in their policy. Not to mention also the inability of TNCs to
cope with this impact on the economic level, which has increased the
possibility of subjecting its political, commercial, social and environmental
accounts to scrutiny and accountability.
It
has become clear that one of the most prominent features of this current
political age is that the making of global and local events today is no longer
confined to governments as it was in the past, and transnational corporations
are no longer free in their influence on societies, but rather, the list of political and economic
decision-makers includes individuals as well.
Accordingly,
it can be said that the increasing influence of monopolistic powers reflects (to
some extent) the imbalance in the global economic system, the increase in
political corruption, or the failure of the policies of technocratic elites.
But on the other hand, increasing the influence of individuals through NGOs
expresses that markets can influence society, but cannot inevitably determine
it. In this context, the least that can be said is that many TNCs and even
governments are now operating more transparently than before as a result of
this pattern of pressure and influence from individuals, regardless of how
problematic it is to measure the extent of this influence.
For example, a pattern
based on focusing on world-famous brands or important political figures by
individuals (through boycotts of consumption and investment or through smear
campaigns and protests) may have negative consequences on their activities. Most
importantly, trying to rebuild their reputations or restore trust (whether
companies, governments or personalities) can be very difficult, even very
costly. Thus, based on this pattern, it is possible to establish political,
economic and environmental alternatives, the source and center of which is the
influence of the individual who is trying to uncover the facts and find
appropriate solutions.
This
influence, which has the potential to add a new voice to the global and local
decision-making process (at all economic, political, social and environmental
levels), ensuring the trend towards a more inclusive sustainable governance
that stimulates change, according to the equation based on the
principle of power and counterpower. Here, we have many examples and evidence that
confirm the efficacy of this style in the face of the influence of economic and
political forces in line with the path of sustainable governance, including,
but not limited to:
1- Influencing political and economic decision-makers and
international financial institutions with regard to the indebtedness of
extremely poor countries. Where a global public opinion was created that
resulted in concessions to reduce these debts.
2- Lobbying the World Trade Organization(WTO) on the issue of
intellectual property rights (related to trade, drug prices and accessibility). Where the Agreement
on Intellectual Property Rights on Trade and Global Health has been adopted in
a manner that protects public health and promotes access to affordable
medicines for all classes of society. As a result, countries such as Thailand, Brazil,
India, South Africa and others have been able to give local pharmaceutical
companies licenses to produce medicines at discount prices, which are equivalent
to those drugs that enjoy proprietary rights, defying the TRIPS agreement
concluded at the WTO that entered into force in 1995.
3- To highlight the negative impact of excessive economic
activity on the environment. Various types of pressures and influence are
exercised in order to confront climate change. Here, we may not need to cite
examples of the success that has been achieved in this regard, because of its
clarity and effectiveness on the ground.
4- Confronting the genetically modified food industry and
trade. Whereas, genetically modified food companies were prevented from
entering many markets (including European and Japanese). In fact, this effect
of confronting the genetically modified food trade has reached some cities in
the United States, despite the direct and significant support provided by the
US administration to that trade.
It
is clear that the outcome of these successes was not due to the influence of
political and economic authorities, but rather the will of the individual
(consumer, investor and saver). This is done through coordinated campaigns
based on boycotting or encouraging consumption and investment (in line with
protecting the environment and human rights and limiting corruption). Logically, this is a
matter of great concern to the corrupt political and economic forces, as the
current political and economic pattern often deviates from moral principles.
While on the other hand, shopping (in all its forms) among individuals has become
more and more imbued with a moral sense.
Also,
which should also draw attention, is that this type of shopping is not just a
tool of pressure, but rather a tool for stimulating many economic and political
forces to reconsider defining their roles and responsibilities. Thus, in light
of a global governance characterized by complexities and unclear definitions,
the role of the individual as an effective force appears, which proves the
belief that traditional politics alone cannot achieve many of the desired
goals.
For example, while the
US administration is still not doing much on environmental issues, a number of
US cities (such as Florida and California) and US oil and chemical companies
have already put environmental goals into practice. This shift in the behavior of
some political and economic officials resulted from realizing the importance of
linking their activities to social, ethical and environmental responsibility as
an urgent necessity to preserve their economic and political interests. Certainly, this realization would not have
occurred without the influence and pressure of individuals.
