A "Long Walk to Freedom" and Democracy: Human Rights, Globalization, and Social Injustice

Before I entered the polling station, an irreverent member of the press called out, "Mr. Mandela, who are you voting for?" I laughed. "You know," I said, I have been agonizing over that choice all morning." I marked an X in the box next to the letters ANC and then slipped my folded ballot paper into a simple wooden box; I had the first vote of my life. . . . The Images of South Africans going to the polls that day are burned in my memory. Great lines of patient people snaking through the dirt roads and streets of towns and cities; old women had waited half a century to cast their vote saying that they felt like human beings for the first time in their lives; white men and women saying they were proud to live in a free country at last. The mood of the nation during those days of voting was buoyant. The violence and bombings ceased, and it was as if we were a nation reborn. Even the logistical difficulties of the voting, misplaced ballots, pirate voting stations, and rumors of fraud in certain places could not dim the overwhelming victory of democracy and justice.

(Mandela 1994, Long Walk to Freedom, p. 618).

Is this the promise of globalization? Will globalization bring democracy and the development and implementation of a human rights agenda and social justice to countries around the world? Will globalization enhance or lead to the deterioration of individual rights? Howard-Hassman (2004:1) presents globalization as "the second great transformation spreading capitalism over the world." In this context, capitalism is viewed as an essential variable that may lead to a democratic state, which in turn may result in a society in which human rights are an essential part of the same. Howard-Hassman indicates that capitalism is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for democracy, while the latter is "the best political system to protect human rights"² (also see Sen 2000). It is also argued that although globalization may negatively impact a country in the short-run, its mid- to long-term effects will be positive and will result in "greater moves to democracy, economic distribution, the rule of law, and the promotion of social and civil rights" (Howard-Hassman 2004:1). But is this or will this be the reality for the vast majority of the world's impoverished nations? The data that we present here suggests that this appears not to be the case, particularly in the context of economic stagnation and increasing poverty, inequality, and social injustice for many countries throughout the world.

Globalization and Capitalism: Is There Hope for the Future?

It is assumed, or at least expected, that today's impoverished nations, through the process of globalization, will experience economic growth and, through the spread of capitalism, will become similar to the so called developed nations, such as the U.S. and Britain, among others. It is also anticipated that the process of globalization will lead to significant social, economic, and political changes resulting in what has been called the "Second Great Transformation."³

As a direct consequence of globalization and the expansion of capitalism, national and international economies are increasingly being controlled, dominated, and shaped by global financial markets and transnational corporations (TNC) as well as by foreign governments, such as the U.S. and Britain, among others. These "centers of power" have been able to influence and shape laws, legislation, and public policy at the international level aimed at extending their political, economic, and military power. Their international influence is, to a large extent, shaping the national and global economic agenda and the development, or lack thereof, of countries throughout the world. This has occurred despite increasing skepticism and opposition from other world leaders and the international community, as manifested, most recently, by the widespread protests against the war on Iraq.

Nevertheless, the military and economic power of countries such as the U.S. is real and should not be ignored. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Defense (September 30, 1999) report titled "Active...