Habermas Answers Democratic Peace Theory and Globalization

The last two posts ended with the questions:

1. How do you achieve an undistorted democracy?
2. How do you answer Globalization?

 

To deal with both questions, Habermas believes that there exists one answer that remedies both. However, he first writes off several solutions proposed by both scholars and politicians:

 

First, the claim that Globalization should just be accepted openly fails to answer the first question as it completely destroys democracy by implying that the people and their elected governments can in no way affect globalization.

 

Second, governments should reject any forms of isolationism (i.e. tariffs, corporate protectionism, etc.) as these represent attempts to undo the colonization of The System, an effort that is impossible. Other nations would respond by cutting off trade and the people would end up receiving a worse off lot.

 

Third, the “Third Way” proposed by new left governments (i.e. Clinton, Blair, etc.) fails to answer the first question as it states that governments can lessen the impact of Globalization by simply retraining people and lessening the blow of economic change. While this represents a good start, it undermines democratic government by failing to effectively represent the will of the populous.

 

Habermas poses that the answer to Globalization can be found in the creation of a Public Sphere where persons can enter into debate free from preexisting social distortions that could affect argument. In this sphere, lower bodies such as town halls, cafes, and the Internet, act to filter out the best ideas through rational discussion. In this manner, the public sphere offers the best way of providing the answer to the first question as the ideas from lower bodies filter up to legislatures and the like. The effective undistorted democracy provides the best means of dealing with globalization (elimination of farming subsidies, effective social programs, etc.) and also restores The Life World’s status by protecting its individual nature and allowing people to get voice their opinion in the world’s workings from a distinct background and culture.

 

Obviously, all of this information is not a complete representation of Habermas, but I encourage all students to read and see where you like his works or not.