What challenges does globalisation present to authoritarian regimes?

Introduction
There is no doubt that the forces of globalisation are providing new challenges for international and
domestic governance. Some have suggested that the challenges are particularly severe for authoritarian
political regimes. The need to be increasingly accountable to liberal international trading and investment
norms and the release of the states monopoly over the provision of information and communication, it is
argued, will undermine authoritarian control and help release the forces of a more plural society. However,
we are far from hearing the death-knell of the nation-state and there is little empirical evidence to date that
shows a correlation between membership in organisations such as the WTO and a decline in state capacity
of authoritarian regimes. Hence, I maintain, in this essay that the authoritarian regime are able to adopt a
variety of strategies to limit the impact of globalisation and even to turn it to their benefit.
Point 1: Economic globalisation
Economic globalisation, which is built on the rules and principles of neoliberalism, undermines the control
of the authoritarian states on their national economy. According to David Harvey, neoliberal ideology
emphasises the maximisation of entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterised by
private property rights, individual liberty, unencumbered market and free trade. The role of the member state
is to preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices. In other words, while enjoying the
benefits of the increasing economic integration through cross border movement of goods, services.
Technologies and capital, the authoritarian regimes will need to succumb its sovereignty to the institutions
such as WTO, World Bank and IMF and forsake its control over the national economy. Moreover, they are
frequently forced to facilitate privatisation, deregulation, the deterioration of wages, labour legislation and
welfare policies to attract the interest of transnational capital. In short, by entering an established liberal
international economic order, the authoritarian regime will be unable to shape it to make it more amenable to
its own views.
For instance, Chinas joining in WTO, althought leading to a greater global economic integration, makes
China more susceptibale to international economic recessions. This was reflected in the Asian Financial
crisis of 1997, which saw China suffer a dip in its own economic fortunes, though its experience was
nothing like the experiences of other East Asian countries. China economic growth was 7.1 percent in 1999,
in the aftermath of the crisis. Compared with 14.2 per cent in 1992.
Although the authoritarian states economy have been gradually integrated with those of the outside world,
its way of government is still out of place with the prevailing democratic institutions in the US-led
international system such as WTO and United Nation. Hence, according to Organskis power transition
theory, which depicted the international hierarchy as a pyramidal structure benefiting those at the apex at the
expense of the satisfaction of other powers, the dissatisfied authoritarian regimes would initiate conflict or
strengthen its control. The significant example that we could see Chinas effort to address the heavy pressure
exerted from the world dominant United States is its initiative in creating an alternative World Bank Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank, in order to get out of the US influence and position itself as the regional
hegemon in Asia-Pacific region.
Point 2: Political globalisation Promote democracy?
Neo-liberal institutionalist theory suggested that globalisation would favour democratisation and undermines
authoritative power. The most tangible evidence of globalisations impact on democratisation has been the infusion of
democratic norms and the principles of human rights that support them, into many international and regional
institutions. In regions lacking a widespread and overt commitment to democracy, Western policymakers and non-
governmental groups trying to promote greater political liberalisation have placed their faith in the indirect effects of
globalisation. In this view, globalisation offers a bait and switch. An authoritarian government agrees to a global
regime to gain benefits of one sort (usually economic) but is forced to accept the political consequences, such as
greater popular pressure for democracy that follow. Policies crafted in accord with this theory focus on two aspects of
globalisation: international trade liberalisation and telecommunications. Thus, for more than a decade successive U.S.
administrations have claimed that broadly maintaining trade with China, and specifically encouraging Chinas entry
into the World Trade Organisation, would provide a back-door route to political reform. Adhering to WTO rules
would require the regime in Beijing to provide more transparent and accountable government and would eventually
strengthen the democratic values in the authoritarian China. In short, WTO membership will mean ongoing pressure
upon China to reform its financial sector and legal system to ensure greater openness and independence, and hence
less political intervention by government.
Although analysts witnessed signs of slow but real political liberalisation in China, such as declination in the
use of political repression, increasing political pluralism, strengthening of institutions for rule of law, popular
participation and the development of civil society, this development is predicted unlikely to move farther, because it
would threaten the CCPs hold on power. In Joseph Fewsmiths view, the CCP will only modest and inner-party
democracy that would not threaten its control, for the sake of entering international trade. Conversely, according to
Andrew Nathan, it was these modest liberalisation institutionalising leadership succession, encouraging meritocratic
promotion and widening political participation making the CCPs version of authoritarian being so resilient,
standing its feet firm from falling to a third wave democratisation.
Point 3: Growth of Civil Society in Authoritarian Regime
The globalisation process has generated a sense of common purpose among civil society actors, and
thus then a trigger for both internal unification, increasing the sense of solidarity among civil society organsiations,
and for contestion of the socio-economic consequencs of globalisation. Especially the technological innovations in the
IT field have revolutionised the oragnisational patterns within civil society. Improvements in the technological sphere
have enabled inexpensive, instantaneous communication and massive diffusion of information affecting styles of
politics, culture and social organization. The globalization of technology has contributed not only to the explosive
growth of information exchange via the Internet, but also to the expansion of education opportunities and the creation
of trans-national social networks. Information, which had been the monopoly of the few, is becoming accessible to
wider and more diverse audiences. The relative ease of accessing information has increased citizens ability to share
views, to become aware of their rights, to make their demands known and to increase their influence generally. As a
consequence, citizens are joining together to demand improved levels of services and higher standards of behaviour
from their governments. This lead to an increased democratisation in the authoritarian regimes, as public now are
more educated and they are braver to voice out their opinions, that the governing party cannot ignore.
For example, the constant reports on Tibet riots by French media and the failure of the Beijing Olympic torch relay in
Paris had sparked the angers of Chinese netizens. The launch of an online campaign to boycott French products was
uncontrollable and eventually this online propagation leaded to social actions, bringing diplomatic meeting with
French government and Carrefour. This indicates the growing role of the public opinion in CCP policy making and
decision.
However, the bad impact of globalization can be controlled by the authoritarian regime, or even make it
benefits to its standpoint. For instance, the government can use technology to monitor and filter cyber communications
and regulates acceptable topics for online discussion. Moreover, the power of civil soviety and public opnion is facing
challneges of being considered to be part of the influence of states and therefore as an intrinsic component of what is
called soft power. In China, the debate on the role of civil society in the nations soft power is growing and may shape
the functions and freedom of manoeuvre of Chiense civil society actors, strengthening the CCPs authoritative rule. In
the case of 2012 Anti-Japan Protests in China, governments involvement in motivating and organizing the protests
was apparent as transportations were arranged to bring 600 farmers from rural provinces to Beijing for the
demonstrations. Meanwhile, many protestors claimed to be given a day off by their employers to demonstrate.