Keith Faulks, in his book Political Sociology, argues that the central focus of the sub-discipline still remains the relationship between the state and civil society. He sees the Weberian notion of the state, which is both legitimate and possessing a monopoly of legal violence, as a contradiction that needs to be resolved in favor of radical pluralism. Only an increase in democratic participation in all institutions, he contends, will allow us to address the risks posed by globalization.
I concur with the idea that participation in decision-making is not just a means, but an end itself. I have seen how it increases self-confidence among team members and generates great ideas for problem-solving. I disagree with Faulks, however, in at least two areas.
First, I am more of a democratic elitist because, even as I believe in the value of democratic participation, I think that representatives, by virtue of the unique perspective they have and the information at their disposal, are capable of making sound decisions on behalf of the electorate. Second, I believe that, on balance, globalization, as driven by the neoliberal agenda, has been a boon to humanity. Perhaps I think this way because I would not have become a manager had it not been for the global integration that precipitated the growth of the BPO industry. My views have changed a lot since the days I sided with Professor Walden Bello's critique of the Washington Consensus.
No comments:
Post a Comment