Activism after Seattle: Dilemmas of the Anti-globalisation Movement

Abstract

The fact that countless people around the globe see street protests against the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank as the only means to voice their opinions indicates a systemic and alarming crisis of legitimacy, one that has to do with the lack of democratic accountability of the major multilateral institutions that shape the world economy. To understand the ensuing dynamics, it is necessary to portray globalisation as a multiple and at times contradictory process: not only as a disempowering encroachment of large and unaccountable economic structures, but also as an evolution that has opened up new possibilities for popular participation in the struggle over global governance. But an increase in political influence also calls for additional moral responsibility, or so at least it should. Among the many political dilemmas that the new breed of diverse global activists face, and that this essay discusses, are the choice between violent and nonviolent means of protest and the struggle over voice and representation, the question of who can legitimately speak for whom. Not all of these dilemmas can be solved. But the global protest movement, problematic as it is at times, plays an important role in fostering a new international democratic ethos. The very process of challenging established norms and institutions generates important public discussion about the nature and direction of global governance.