Barrister Dr. Jimoh Ibrahim, CFR |
Some nations
simply continued with communism. To them, it was about the welfare of every
one. Others practiced the traditional system that gave the entire country to a
single family which ran the state as a personal estate! Globalisation is aimed
at leading to convergence towards one dominant (political, economic and
cultural) system, as put by Fukuyama in the End of History, Sachs and Warner in
The Convergence of test, or Jimoh Ibrahim in Conspiracy of Convergence, a process
leading to greater interindependence and mutual awareness among economic,
political and social units in the world and among actors in general. Those who
argue for a convergence of the world argue in sympathy of the need for the
entire world to be celebrated as a flat world.
They insist
that the celebration of the 21st Century can only be in a world that is in
convergence. Thomas Friedman leads
the arguments in this regard. Regrettably the mythological paradigm of the
conceptualisation of the United Nations is almost being kissed good night
today. The conspiracy is to keep the United Nations aside while the discussion
is ongoing or to force her to arrange some meetings! There is nothing to
demonstrate the defence of Article 2(4) “Prevention of the use of force,” and
Article 2(7) “Non interference in the domestic and internal political affairs
of member nations.” Specifically, the United Nations’ Article 2(7) provides the
argument postulated by Friedman, which almost gives no room for doubt that the
conspiracy of the convergence is already a success.
According to
Friedman, “distance is dead, the wall has been taken down, and Americans have
gotten lazy!” So if one country has “gotten lazy,” then the world is captured
in convergence – apologies to Friedman. Does that mean that it was America that
was holding the convergence? Pankay
Ghemamat wrote much from the influence of business. To him, if we redefine
global strategy, there is nothing to suggest that a flat world is in the
offering, for “we are more wire, but no more global, or “globaloney.” The
policies that we fickle humans enact are surprisingly reversible and
international economic integration may be inherently incompatible with national
sovereignty.” The main question, beyond the happiness of Friedman, is to ask if
the world was connected and if there was integration that was beyond the praxis
of the United Nations? Which political system do we adopt? Should we opt for
the western democracy of Britain and America, with their followers? Or do we
prefer China’s communism, or the kingdom hierarchy of Saudi Arabia? Do we
follow the Sheiks of UAE? If we adopt the Saudi political system and the wisdom
of monarchies, we simply say goodbye to democracy! Who will protest? Why?
If that is
not good enough and we opt for the communism of China, we do not need the
strong institutions and we can accommodate corruption as it is in China. We
again say goodbye to democracy! But what is wrong with that and where are
complaints going to come from? Will the minority impose their political system
on the majority? God forbid! Which way do we go? Which one should we adopt? The
new convergence cannot operate two different political systems for one flat
world. If we do, the convergence is not complete politically. A vote for one political
system is key to the unity of the world. An imposed political system is
preparation for the Third World War. (God forbid). The barrier of political
distance as it stands, leads to the question: Will the conspiracy of
convergence (a flat world) succeed? (National Mirror)
No comments:
Post a Comment