Page 240 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

226 Globalization and Democracy

division between wealthy, educated, and urban, on one side, and impov-
erished, in need of education, and rural on the other, the value of the
Internet as a “ public of publics ” must be doubtful (Castells, 2009 : 62).
There are questions, too, over how far communication extends, even
amongst those who do have access to the Internet. Most interaction on
the Internet is personal, and the sheer volume and diversity of what is
available means that most contributions are seen by a very small number
of people, and responded to by even fewer. Even on websites that explic-
itly stage political discussion, Cammaerts and van Audenhove found
that many contributions came from a small number of like - minded
participants, and even fewer were directly related to debate between par-
ticipants in the forum. Where people did not agree, and participation

widened, conflicts could be very uncivil, certainly undeliberative, trading
insults more often than detailed discussion (Cammaerts and van
Audenhove, 2005 ).
The main problem with the ideal of the global public sphere, however,
is the existing structure of international political institutions. As Fraser
points out, according to Habermas ’ s work in The Structural Transformation
of the Public Sphere , the national public sphere developed in a setting in
which relative state control over the capitalist economy came before social
movements aiming at democratization. In comparison with sovereign
states, international political institutions are weak, and legitimate public
spheres, which would enable the participation in principle of “ all affected ”
by a particular issue, must therefore establish both the capacity of effec-
tive institutions and, at the same time, translate public opinion into law
and administration, to bring effective pressure to bear on those institu-
tions. In other words, in contrast to the national public sphere, the global
public sphere must both enable the conditions for open participation in
wide - ranging public debate and, at the same time, create effective, but
porous and responsive institutions at the global level (Fraser, 2007 ).
International political institutions are weak in that they must negotiate
between the continuing ideals of state sovereignty and the benefi ts of
international cooperation across borders. Constructions and interpreta-
tions of “ national interests ” dominate policy - making in international
political institutions, whether they result in small states cooperating with
larger, wealthier states for their own purposes, making policies that can
be adapted to suit different state capacities, or bribery and threats by
larger states in order to realize their aims. There is no doubt that the ideas
governing global governance can be challenged and changed, as they have
been in the past. Neo - liberalism itself is just such a change in the practice
of Keynesian economics to which the World Bank and the IMF adhered