12.3: Pressure from Below - Fragmentation

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Compare and contrast globalization and fragmentation.
• Identify fragmentation as well as related terms such as devolution, economic nationalism and geopolitics.
• Distinguish between economic, political and social fragmentation.

Introduction

Ironically, while the forces of globalization are strengthening worldwide connections, the forces of fragmentation threaten to tear apart existing global structures. Fragmentation is understood as the fracturing of established orders, be they political, economic, or cultural. It is the opposite of globalization’s endgame. Globalization scholars in the 1990s predicted that a convergence would occur, where the gaps between vastly different economies would shrink and/or eventually disappear.

Fracturing can take place at several levels, at the individual level, the domestic level, and at the global level. Individually, people are becoming less trustworthy of the world around them. Steger and James (2019) have referred to this as the Great Unsettling, where earlier ways of acting and knowing have been upended through globalization, causing uneasiness among people. The post-Cold War era has seen rapid changes in the way they work, communicate, buy, learn, and in some cases, physically survive. This has led to an unsettling of relations. By this, the authors mean relations between “people, machines, regimes, objects, [and] nature” that have defined our lives. A good example has been the ubiquity of technology and our reliance on it, especially during the pandemic. We now use technology to order food, attend classes, and even date. The authors contend that for many people, the way they understand life has become disembedded from what they used to know. There is a desire by many to ‘return’ to the past, when life was simpler.

Domestically, fragmentation is happening in two ways. First, existing political systems in democratic countries are fraying. Historically, developed or consolidated democracies are dominated by center-right and center-left parties. For many European democracies, this would be the Christian Democrats on the right and the Social Democrat on the left. These two parties would often compete for the right to form governing alliances. Since the Global Financial Crisis voters have less faith in established parties. Second, we have seen devolution. As discussed in Chapter One, devolution is where the central government in a country deliberately transfers power to a government at a lower level. Devolution was designed to bring democracy closer to the people through the empowering of local and regional governments. The goal was to better respond to the voters’ needs, especially in countries with significant ethnic or religious minorities.

Globally, fragmentation is developing in two significant paths. First, has been the development of economic nationalism. Economic nationalism was defined in Chapter Eight as attempts by a state to protect or bolster its economy for nationalist goals. This usually involves actions taken by a country to protect its economy from outside competition & influences such as tariffs, import quotas and subsidies. Second, and much more importantly, has been the growing geopolitical tension between major powers. Geopolitics is defined as the study of the geographical aspects of political phenomena (Kristof 1994: 508). China and Russia see themselves as global powers in their own right and are pushing back against US hegemony. China is asserting itself in Asia-Pacific region, taking a more nationalistic tone towards the island of Taiwan. Russia has made it clear that the former Soviet Union is its sphere of influence, and has declared the potential NATO membership of neighboring Ukraine a red line.

Economic Fragmentation

Economic fragmentation is intimately linked to globalization. There has been significant backlash against globalization as for many, globalization has not benefited them economically. Milanovic’s (2016) analysis of global growth over the past four decades shows that globalization has shown a curvilinear relationship between income growth and income group by percentile. The bottom 50% saw a total increase in wealth, which is evidence that globalization has worked for a number of developing countries. Yet, a smaller global capitalist elite has gained the most from globalization. The top 1% has seen their wealth grow by 27%, and now control over 40% of the world’s total wealth.

Milanovic’s (2016) study shows that globalization has left many behind. Middle and working-class populations in developed economies have seen little to no benefit. This trend started in the 1990s and accelerated with the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. For example, in the US, the wages of less skilled workers—those without a college education—have stagnated or declined for decades. For example, America’s median household income remains below its peak in 1999. Previously comfortable middle-class towns and neighborhoods struggle with joblessness and drug abuse. The pandemic has only made these issues more acute.

Cumbers (2017) suggests that workers in neoliberal economies are ‘economically marginalized’. Workers in countries such as the U.S., UK, Singapore and other similar countries suffer from lower levels of social protection, employment rights and democratic participation in their economic decision-making. Neoliberal economics are deregulated and concentrated in their capital. This produces an environment where workers experience economic marginalization and feel like they have no control over their economics, and to a lesser extent, their lives.

Political Fragmentation

The acceleration of job losses in manufacturing and other labor positions has had a direct effect on domestic politics in democracies. The rise of populism, especially national-populism is directly correlated to the growing economic misfortunes of their citizens. Populism is built on an appeal to the people. It is a denunciation of the elite and the idea that politics should be an expression of the general will. Populism can occur on both the left and the right ideologically. Leftist-populism is characterized by a combination of populism with some form of socialism. In leftist-populism, the ‘worker’ needs protection from globalization. The desire is to prioritize class allegiance over national attachment. Leftist populists see capitalists as greedy. They see immigration as a weapon used by global capitalists to pit working class people against each other. Leftist populism had political success in Latin America in the 2000s and is often an alternative.

National-populism occurs when right-wing populists combine it with nationalism. In national-populism, the ‘nation’ needs protection from globalization. Steger & James (2019) argue that the new wave of right-wing populism is intricately connected to the shifting perceptions of the role of globalization in the world. For national-populists, the “nation” itself needs protecting from globalization. The real enemy are globalists who care nothing about the countries they fleece. They tend to use nationalistic slogans such as “take our country back!” or “make America great again!” In the aggregate, national populists oppose or reject liberal globalization, mass immigration and the consensus politics of recent times. They promise instead to give voice to those who feel that they have been neglected, if not held in contempt, by increasingly distant elites. It can best be understood as “hard-working people” vs “globalist elites” (Steger & James, 2019).

National-Populism centers on three “threats”:

• Threats to one’s employment (economic threat hypothesis)
• Threats to one’s cultural or national identity (cultural threat hypothesis)
• Threats to one’s personal security of physical safety (security threat hypothesis)

The common thread among all right-wing national-populists is the rejection or containment of immigration. The anxiety towards immigration often translates into populist attitudes. National-Populists have built winning strategies centered on anti-globalization, immigration and security from foreign threats. They have become a major force in democratic societies, with far right parties winning seats in parliaments, fueling Brexit, and the election wins of Donald Trump in the US and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.

Societal Fragmentation

The Global Financial Crisis exposed serious cracks in the global civil society. Belief in the future of globalization was muted. The recession caused unemployment levels to spike in the developed world and worsen difficult situations in the developing world. The difficulties stemming from the Global Financial Crisis contributed to the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt, where the crisis affected wages. Similarly, protest movements developed in Greece fueled by the debt crises, and in the US where the Tea Party movement took to the streets. There have been anti-government protests in India, Iraq, Hong Kong, Lebanon and most of Latin America, particularly in Chile, where the protests led to a complete rewrite of the country’s constitution. There were so many demonstrations in 2019 that it became known as the “Year of Protests”. Below is an image of how diverse the protests were even before the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an explosion of protests. Even though most countries shut down during the early phases of the pandemic, protests continued. According to the The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), protests actually increased 7% in 2020. At first, the protests were against the lockdowns of societies, however as vaccine mandates became law, citizens also protested these as well. The pandemic protests are a good example of populism described in the previous section. Most protesters framed closures and mandates as government overreach and argued they were fighting for their freedoms. Will protests continue when the pandemic enters the endemic stage? A lot will depend if certain measures stay in place.

Brexit is a great example of societal fragmentation. Brexit is the term used to describe the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (EU). The EU is a supranational organization, where member-states agree to give up or share sovereignty on particular issue areas. The UK joined in the 1970s, with the intent of benefiting from closer economic ties. However, as the EU progressively became more of a political union, successive UK governments balked. The UK opted to not enter into three major EU projects: the Schengen Agreement, where citizens of the EU can move freely without a passport; the monetary union, where countries adopted the Euro; and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The UK has traditionally been a global leader in the promotion of neoliberalism. UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher worked closely with US President Ronald Reagan in the Washington Consensus. The UK had been a member of the EU since the 1970s, and was instrumental in neoliberal reforms in EU policy. The Global Financial Crisis deeply affected the UK. The Conservative Party adopted a policy of austerity, where the government preferred not to run large budget deficits to strengthen the economy. General discontent led voters to seek alternative parties. The surge of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) worried the Conservative Party. This forced then PM David Cameron to call for a Brexit vote so he would not lose MPs to UKIP. UKIP campaigned on an explicit anti-immigrant and anti-Islam message that proved effective. Was UKIP responsible for Brexit? No. But UKIP provided ammunition for some who supported Brexit.

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum to gauge public support for continued British membership in the European Union, with a majority voting for Leave.
This outcome represented a radical departure from over 40 years of British involvement in European integration, a vote of no confidence in the European project itself. As such, understanding the causes of Britain’s momentous decision, as well as its potential ramifications for the UK, the EU and their future relationship to one another, is of central importance. ‘Sovereignty’ and ‘immigration’ were the two most frequently cited concerns among those who voted Leave. Thus, it was the interaction between Britons’ strong sense of national identity and the enlarged EU’s movement towards political union that arguably took the UK out!

Brexit has led to serious economic and political consequences at home. The image above clearly shows that Scotland voted to Remain. Scottish nationalists are pushing for a second independence referendum, claiming that Brexit goes against the will of the Scottish people. In addition, Brexit has led to a unique situation in Northern Ireland, which is the UK’s only land border with the EU as Ireland is an EU member-state. There are no obvious methods whereby the UK could halt free movement of European citizens into Britain without erecting border controls with the Republic of Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Finally, Brexit has implications for the future of the EU. Could other countries follow? If so, this will make it much more difficult for Europe to coordinate on meaningful policies.