Bringing the Global Political Economy Back In: Neoliberalism, Globalization, and Democratic Consolidation

Abstract

How do we consolidate developing democratic regimes in the Global South so that the life expectancies of these regimes are considerably sustainable? What have been the key epistemological and normative shortcomings of the mainstream scholarship of democratization? How can we overcome these limitations? Is it necessary to consider the global political economy as a fertile source for deducing some explanatory variables that will help us understand the sources of democratic instability at the national‐domestic spheres of political governance? In view of these questions, I contend that there are fundamental limitations in the mainstream scholarship on democratization that we have to overcome. In this essay, I critically appraise the nature of the democratization debate by positing that existing material inequities and injustices in new electoral democracies in the developing world are constitutive of global hegemonic interests that function as the critical determinants of democratic stability. Second, I propose some corrective suggestions that will perhaps inspire a new research agenda about democratization that should overcome the limitations of the current mainstream social science scholarship on democratization. Finally, I articulate some concluding substantive remarks on why we need to bring the global political economy back into our scholarly analyses of democratic consolidation.

Global Shift

“…Finally, another potentially significant cause of a global shift is material inequality not only between but, perhaps, more importantly within nations. Such a situation emerges when domestic instability is fueled by the dramatic decline of public goods provision, equitable economic growth, and scandalous levels of material inequality (Regilme 2014;Piketty 2014). To the extent that the legitimacy of US hegemony depends upon the enduring stability of liberal democratic systems over alternative forms of governance that rising and reemerging powers might offer, the potential regress and eventual decay of consolidated and new democratic regimes could gravely undermine future US power, thereby escalating a wider global shift.…”

The decline of American power and Donald Trump: Reflections on human rights, neoliberalism, and the world order

“…Yet, neoliberal governance neglects crucial areas of social provision including high-quality and accessible education, health care, and other forms of social safety nets. Over time, electoral democratic societies with extreme levels of material inequality are more likely to experience political instability, and given the right conditions, could possibly lead to democratic decay or even collapse (Regilme 2014).…”

“…Indeed, the contradictions of neoliberalism as the core element of the domestic and transnational foundations of American power have facilitated its further decline. Domestically, the sharpening material inequality within the US generates pervasive internal social conflicts, and as research shows in the field of democratization studies, could lead to democratic backsliding or other forms of political instability (Rapley 2004;Regilme 2014;Boix 2003). At the transnational level, neoliberalism, as a constitutive paradigm of American power, shows that unregulated financial markets, the pervasive commodification of human life, and the weakening of public goods provision undermine the legitimacy of American power -an outcome that becomes more pronounced especially when other rising powers discursively provide alternatives to the current world order 3 .…”

The Politics of Contemporary Capitalism in Turkey (and the Politics of its Interlocutors)

“…Mirowski, ). The book also successfully sidesteps some of the shortcomings associated with historical institutionalist approaches such as the tendency to neglect ‘the indispensable role played by agents of change who act within the broader remit of structurally embedded institutions’ (Regilme, : 286). Yet the authors’ rejection of monolithic accounts of neoliberalism, which they largely affiliate with Marxist studies (p. 24, n.6), comes at the cost of de‐emphasizing the structural tendencies of the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist state.…”