For geographers studying globalization, the social and spatial distribution of political power is an area of increasing interest (Figure 1.22). Recent years have produced what appears to be a trend toward political systems guided by competitive elections, a process often called democratization. This trend is of particular interest because it runs counter to authoritarianism, a form of government that subordinates individual freedom to the power of the state or elite regional and local leaders. In democratic systems of government, beyond the right to participate in free elections, average individuals have many other political freedoms, such as the following: freedom of speech (the right to express oneself in public and through the media), freedom of assembly (the right to gather together in groups to pursue common interests), freedom of movement (the right to travel, live, and work in any part of a state that a person is a citizen of), freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (the right to privacy and protection from searches and seizures of individuals and their property by anyone not possessing a warrant granted by a court of law), freedom of the press (the right to communicate through any media without interference from the government or other entities), and freedom of religion (the right to practice or not practice any faith or spiritual path).

Geographers do not necessarily conclude that democracy and respect for political freedoms is the “best” political arrangement. Indeed, many geographers are critical of the imposition of democracy, often by foreign governments or organizations, in places where local people have not chosen democratic systems and where long-standing cultural traditions support other political arrangements. Nevertheless, few would deny that the shift toward more democratic systems of government and greater political freedom over the past century and into recent times is extremely significant, if not always peaceful. In this regard, geographers and other scholars are particularly interested in the role of political freedoms at the local level, in addition to the roles that social movements, international organizations, and a free media play in the exercise of power and politics. 23. PROMOTING DEMOCRACY: A CONTROVERSIAL THEME

The twentieth century saw a steady expansion of some political freedoms throughout the world, with more and more countries holding elections of their leaders, at least at the national level. However the status of many other political freedoms is more complicated. For example, in the United States, recent revelations by former employees of federal government intelligence agencies have led many to question how well protected some political freedoms are in a country generally considered to be one of the more democratic and “politically free” places on Earth. The revelations surround secret mass surveillance programs in which the phone- and Internet-based communications of more than a billion people, including all U.S. citizens, are collected, stored, and analyzed by the federal government and various corporations that it hires. These activities have been criticized as undermining many political freedoms, including the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and, through intimidation, freedom of the press.

39

The Arab Spring movements, which commenced in early 2011 in a number of countries in North Africa and Southwest Asia, further highlight the complexity of the expansion of political freedoms. These movements showed that massive public demonstrations can achieve amazing turnovers of power, as was the case in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, but the outcomes are more complex and ambiguous than a straightforward expansion of political freedoms. While the demonstrations are an expression of certain political freedoms (freedom of assembly, freedom of speech) and have resulted in political reforms and elections in some cases, they have also provoked extremely repressive responses from authoritarian states and similarly forceful tactics from groups that oppose the state. The result can be widespread violence and constraints on political freedoms.

In Egypt, following demonstrations that precipitated the end of a notoriously corrupt authoritarian government that had ruled for more than 30 years, elections were held in 2012. An Islamist political party with authoritarian leanings, the Muslim Brotherhood, won an easy majority, causing concern that voters had quashed broader democratic reforms and endangered political freedoms. After a year of increasingly authoritarian rule, the Muslim Brotherhood was removed from power by a combination of protests and a military coup d’état (an overthrow of a government by the military). Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood held violent protests in reaction, and the military responded with a crackdown in which thousands of demonstrators were killed and an unknown number imprisoned.

The case of Syria (see Figure 1.22B) is more extreme. Syrians held massive Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 in an attempt to oust a regime that had ruled for more than 40 years. The military and police violently repressed the demonstrations, sparking a civil war in which more than 120,000 people have died and 5 million more have been displaced from their homes.

Here are some of the most widely agreed-upon factors that support the expansion of political freedoms:

As the map in Figure 1.22 shows, high levels of political freedom are not enjoyed throughout the world. A possible explanation for this is that the expansion of political freedoms is sometimes at odds with geopolitics, the strategies that countries use to ensure that their own interests are served in relations with other countries. Geopolitics was perhaps most obvious during the Cold War era, the period from 1946 to the early 1990s when the United States and its allies in western Europe faced off against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its allies in eastern Europe and Central Asia. Ideologically, the United States promoted a version of free market capitalism—an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, driven by the profit motive and characterized by a competitive marketplace. By contrast, the USSR and its allies favored what was called communism, but what was actually a state-controlled economy—a socialized system of public services and a centralized government in which citizens participated only indirectly through the Communist Party.

The Cold War became a race to attract the loyalties of unallied countries and to arm them. Sometimes the result was that authoritarian rulers were embraced as allies by one side or the other. Eventually, the Cold War influenced the internal and external policies of virtually every country in the world, often causing complex local issues to be oversimplified into a contest of democracy and capitalism versus communism.

In the post–Cold War period of the 1990s, geopolitics shifted. The Soviet Union dissolved, creating many independent states, nearly all of which began to implement some democratic and free market reforms. Globally, countries jockeyed for position in what looked like it might become a new era of trade and amicable prosperity rather than war. But throughout the 1990s, while the developed countries were in a period of unprecedented prosperity, many unresolved political conflicts emerged in southeastern Europe, Central and South America, Africa, Southwest Asia, and South Asia. Too often these disputes erupted into bloodshed and the systematic attempt to remove (through ethnic cleansing) or exterminate (through genocide) all members of a particular ethnic or religious group.

40

The new geopolitical era ushered in by the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, is still evolving. Because of the size and the global power of the United States, the attacks and the U.S. reactions to them affected virtually every international relationship, public and private. The ensuing adjustments, which will continue for years, are directly or indirectly affecting the daily lives of billions of people around the world.

In addition to expanding political freedoms there is also a trend toward greater international cooperation. The prime example of this today is the United Nations (UN), an assembly of 193 member states. The member states sponsor programs and agencies that focus on, among other things, economic development, general health and well-being, democratization, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid. However, the UN rarely challenges a country’s sovereignty, its right to conduct its internal affairs as it sees fit without interference from outside. Consequently, the UN often can enforce its rulings only through economic sanctions. While the UN does play a role in peacekeeping in troubled areas, there are no true UN military forces. Rather, there are troops from member states that wear UN designations on their uniforms and take orders from temporary UN commanders.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are an increasingly important embodiment of international cooperation. In such associations, individuals, often from widely differing backgrounds and locations, agree on political, economic, social, or environmental goals. For example, some NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund, work to protect the environment. Others, such as Doctors Without Borders, provide medical care to those who need it most, especially in conflict zones. The Red Cross and Red Crescent provide emergency relief after disasters, as do Oxfam, Catholic Charities, and Gift of the Givers (Figure 1.23).

41

42

NGOs can be an important component of civil society, yet there is some concern that the power of huge international NGOs might undermine democratic processes, especially in small countries. Some critics feel that NGO officials are a powerful, do-gooder elite that does not interact sufficiently well with local people. A frequent target of such criticism is Oxfam International (a networked group of 17 NGOs), the world leader in emergency famine relief. Oxfam was a major provider of relief after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2013 cyclone in the Philippines. It has now expanded to cover long-term efforts to reduce poverty and injustice, which Oxfam sees as the root causes of famine. This more politically active role has brought Oxfam into conflict with governments and officials capable of hampering the NGO’s ability to achieve many of its goals at the local level. 22. NGOS PLAY LARGER ROLE IN WORLD AFFAIRS