[Pharm-policy] HARDT and NEGRI: What the Protesters in Genoa Want

[James Love]

(Thanks to whoever sent me this pointer.)

With the attention being given to these anti globalization protests, the
op-ed in Friday's NYT by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri is among the
more thoughtful pieces.  When one looks at the undemocratic and
ambitious programs underway at global and regional institutions such as
the WTO, WIPO, the FTAA, ICANN, UNCITRAL, APEC, the Hague Conference,
the G8, etc, one has to ask what is the future of democratic
institutions and national governments, and where this discussion will
end up?   Jamie


"The many protests that have led up to Genoa were based on the
recognition that no national power is in control of the present global
order. Consequently protests must be directed at international and
supranational organizations, such as the G-8, the World Trade
Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The
movements are not anti-American, as they often appear, but aimed at a
different, larger power structure.

"If it is not national but supranational powers that rule today's
globalization, however, we must recognize that this new order has no
democratic institutional mechanisms for representation, as nation-states
do: no elections, no public forum for debate.

"The rulers are effectively blind and deaf to the ruled. The protesters
take to the streets because this is the form of expression available to
them. The lack of other venues and social mechanisms is not their
creation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/20/opinion/20HARDT.html

 July 20, 2001

What the Protesters in Genoa Want
By MICHAEL HARDT and ANTONIO NEGRI
 
enoa, that Renaissance city known for both openness and shrewd political
sophistication, is in crisis this weekend. It should have thrown its
gates wide for the celebration of this summit of the world's most
powerful leaders. But instead Genoa has been transformed into a medieval
fortress of barricades with high-tech controls. The ruling ideology
about the present form of globalization is that there is no alternative.
And strangely, this restricts both the rulers and the ruled.

Leaders of the Group of Eight have no choice but to attempt a show of
political sophistication. They try to appear charitable and transparent
in their goals. They promise to aid the world's poor and they genuflect
to Pope John Paul II and his interests. But the real agenda is to
renegotiate relations among the powerful, on issues such as the
construction of missile defense systems.

The leaders, however, seem detached somehow from the transformations
around them, as though they are following the stage directions from a
dated play. We can see the photo already, though it has not yet been
taken: President George W. Bush as an unlikely king, bolstered by lesser
monarchs. This is not quite an image of the future. It resembles more an
archival photo, pre-1914, of superannuated royal potentates.

Those demonstrating against the summit in Genoa, however, are not
distracted by these old-fashioned symbols of power. They know that a
fundamentally new global system is being formed. It can no longer be
understood in terms of British, French, Russian or even American
imperialism.

The many protests that have led up to Genoa were based on the
recognition that no national power is in control of the present global
order. Consequently protests must be directed at international and
supranational organizations, such as the G-8, the World Trade
Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The
movements are not anti-American, as they often appear, but aimed at a
different, larger power structure.

If it is not national but supranational powers that rule today's
globalization, however, we must recognize that this new order has no
democratic institutional mechanisms for representation, as nation-states
do: no elections, no public forum for debate.

The rulers are effectively blind and deaf to the ruled. The protesters
take to the streets because this is the form of expression available to
them. The lack of other venues and social mechanisms is not their
creation.

Antiglobalization is not an adequate characterization of the protesters
in Genoa (or Göteborg, Quebec, Prague, or Seattle). The globalization
debate will remain hopelessly confused, in fact, unless we insist on
qualifying the term globalization. The protesters are indeed united
against the present form of capitalist globalization, but the vast
majority of them are not against globalizing currents and forces as
such; they are not isolationist, separatist or even nationalist.

The protests themselves have become global movements and one of their
clearest objectives is for the democratization of globalizing processes.
It should not be called an antiglobalization movement. It is
pro-globalization, or rather an alternative globalization movement — one
that seeks to eliminate inequalities between rich and poor and between
the powerful and the powerless, and to expand the possibilities of
self-determination.

If we understand one thing from the multitude of voices in Genoa this
weekend, it should be that a different and better future is possible.
When one recognizes the tremendous power of the international and
supranational forces that support our present form of globalization, one
could conclude that resistance is futile.

But those in the streets today are foolish enough to believe that
alternatives are possible — that "inevitability" should not be the last
word in politics. A new species of political activist has been born with
a spirit that is reminiscent of the paradoxical idealism of the 1960's —
the realistic course of action today is to demand what is seemingly
impossible, that is, something new.

Protest movements are an integral part of a democratic society and, for
this reason alone, we should all thank those in the streets in Genoa,
whether we agree with them or not. Protest movements, however, do not
provide a practical blueprint for how to solve problems, and we should
not expect that of them. They seek rather to transform the public agenda
by creating political desires for a better future.
 
We see seeds of that future already in the sea of faces that stretches
from the streets of Seattle to those of Genoa. One of the most
remarkable characteristics of these movements is their diversity: trade
unionists together with ecologists together with priests and communists.
We are beginning to see emerge a multitude that is not defined by any
single identity, but can discover commonality in its multiplicity.

These movements are what link Genoa this weekend most clearly to the
openness — toward new kinds of exchange and new ideas — of its
Renaissance past.


Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri are the authors of "Empire.''
_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
Random-bits@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits