Introduction
Free trade and liberal economic relations are the main issues of the modern economic system of the world. The ideological approach followed by Canada is grounded in a international agreements and relations accepted by global community. Hence, economic dominance involves society’s acceptance of a system of production that is viewed as efficient and fair. Free trade relations entail state structures that reflect the legitimizing support of the leading economic issues and well as the bulk of social and economic relations inside the country (Mankiw 82). When political structures, the system of production, and the ideological framework are dominant, the Canadian state need not rely heavily upon its coercive apparatus. In Canada, free trade enhances democracy and democratic institutions leading to liberalization of economic and social relations inside the country.
Free trade and liberalization
Canadian security under NAFTA has been influenced by regional influences beyond U. S. strategic-economic concerns. For example, a large number of multinational organization and corporations (MNEs and TNCs) represent significant social forces that, at times, have had a considerable impact on security in Canada. Occasionally these MNCs have developed through a strictly domestic metamorphosis. National companies have spawned to provide services previously performed by the state prior to the severe neoliberal cutbacks that began in the early 1990s, or have formed to protest against the noxious social effects of restructuring. At other times, national political groups have emerged with strong support and solidarity from MNCs (Mankiw 65).
A number of regional or global companies operating in Canada have been assisting their Canadian counterparts in the realms of human rights, anti- militarization policies, and so on. The central point is that emerging transnational MNCs networks possess the potential for strong political influence throughout the NAFTA region. As we shall see later in the book, the emergence of these new social movements has contributed to the impetus toward democratic reform in Canada, which could affect conceptions of security (Mankiw 81). Throughout most of the 1990s period, sovereignty meant that national governments generally possessed a substantial degree of control over the economic, cultural, and political systems within the territorial boundaries of the state. But especially since the 1990s, national governments find themselves in the predicament of wielding steadily less power over what transpires within their spatial boundaries. The ascendant power of transnational capital, through both production processes and the mechanisms of international finance, has severely curtailed the sovereign power of governments as well as the democratic power of their citizens (Clement 43).
Overall, Canadian government seems increasingly more accountable to transnational capital than they do to their own citizens. To this extent, the real democratic power of the populace is diminished. One important result of this has been a crisis of democracy and of state power, in the sense that citizens expect more from the government than it has the capacity to deliver. Since a primary function of government traditionally has been the provision of security to its citizens, the wilting of state power under post-sovereignty has meant that the state has a diminished capacity for such endeavors (Irwin 62).
While the globalization and free trade in Canada represent one facet of this democratic era, it is by no means the only one. For instance, environmental predicaments recognize no national boundaries. In addition, economic developments in the form of omnipresent surveillance systems have also served to diminish the previously sacred political privacy afforded by national borders. The central point, then, is that definitions of “national” security, which rely heavily upon traditional conceptions of state sovereignty, seem rather antiquated in the present context. This is not to deny that citizens still look primarily to the state for political direction and expression. Definitions of democratic power vary considerably. For example, one can conceive of human rights rather narrowly as political freedom, coupled with the absence of violations of the physical and psychological integrity of the citizenry. Another conception of democratic power is twofold. The first component entails the right to basic economic survival, such as the provision of food, shelter, health care, etc (Irwin 72). The second involves an array of democratic rights—democracy, a legitimate legal system, the absence of harassment or harm of the population at the hands of government forces, adequate labor rights, freedom from racism and sexism, and so on. The democratic conception is the one favored here, since one cannot enjoy political rights unless one is first guaranteed the basic right of human survival (Sawyer98).
Free trade and civil society
On the other hand, frequent and obvious violations of human rights abuses by the state in the context of escalating ungovernability and economic hardship, as has been the case in Canada, seems likely to cultivate additional popular backlashes that could further weaken state power and generate political chaos. Such a scenario is not conducive to stability, which is the prerequisite for both foreign investment and economic development. Hence, in contrast to the Chinese and Chilean examples, the Canadian case suggests that the government’s strategy has been to apply enough repression to be viewed both domestically and abroad as being “in control,” but not so much repression as to generate a degree of popular hostility that could deliver the country to the brink of revolution (Irwin 62). Democratic and inclusive political structures can help foster this. For democratic power to be truly reflective of societal interests, the state must rely on some sort of consultative mechanism whereby the national population can participate in, or at least condone, its definition. Hence, democratic structures can facilitate true conceptions of security, since the state is accountable to its citizenry. Even highly inclusive forms of corporatism, rather than its authoritarian variant that characterized the Canadian system until its unravelling in the democratic era, could conceivably muster the extensive representation required to concoct a definition of security that is legitimate (Sawyer 63).
Free trade and democratic power
Free trade allows Canada to involve in international relations and accept greater cooperation and involvement of other countries. The purpose here is not to provide a thorough account of Canada’s dynamic and complicated political system, but to present a brief summary of that system with respect to the central theme of the relationship between democracy and security. Following a conceptual discussion, a portrait will be presented of the relevant components of Canadian politics, emphasizing the emergence and maturation of civil society. A concluding section will address future prospects and summarize the links between democracy and national security (Irwin 53). By contrast, free trade has also boosted the struggle for democracy in some important ways. The state’s retraction under the neoliberal scheme from social welfare, and from the domestic economy in general, has spelled the development of new social forces that have assumed duties previously performed by the government. The result has been less control by the state over society, and the emergence of social forces that increasingly challenge state authority, points to which we will return in the subsequent discussion of Canadian society (Rugman 82).
They have been key actors in the struggle to achieve self-governing structures. The conglomeration of MNCs into networks has provided them with considerably more power vis-Ã -vis the government than if they had acted alone. Not only have MNCs in Canada linked grass-roots movements to national endeavors, but the creation of NAFTA has sparked some important transnational MNCs networks. A key focus of the conference was democratic development in Canada under the new free trade agreement (Rugman 82). Transnational networks possess the capacity to balance, at least to some extent, the immense power of transnational capital. They also have promoted democratic tendencies within Canada by providing monetary and ideological support for Canadian MNCs struggling toward that end. Moreover, as national sovereignty has eroded with the advent of transnational production and economic regionalism, democratic power lost at the national level can potentially be compensated for by the fortification of democratically oriented transnational MNCs networks (Roberts 62). Free trade has a positive impact on democratic rights and freedoms in Canada as it permits involvement of more social and economic agents in trade relations and economic processes.
Considerable work needs to be accomplished with respect to the endeavors of both national and transnational MNCs networks, since they remained in a nascent phase during the 1990s. Their power should not be exaggerated, or their nature romanticized. Since Canada as a whole has had little experience in democratic practices, Canadian MNCs themselves have embraced the task of developing and maintaining democratic structures (Irwin 66). Furthermore, they have dedicated themselves to cultivating the political expertise that is required to translate their interests into reality. Beyond this, the Canadian government has engaged in increasingly rigorous attempts to co-opt and regulate MNCs, which should be regarded as a natural development, given the regime’s former status as a master of the corporatist model. This has entailed such tactics as the government’s selective bestowal of tax deductibility status for typically cash-strapped MNCs. Some organizations have resisted this, while others have not. Finally, another component of Canadian free trade that is relevant with regard to the struggle for democracy is the role of opposition parties (Roberts 52). Free trade creates new economic opportunities for the society and national companies which, in their turn, influence civil liberties and democratic relations inside the country.
Conclusion
In sum, free trade and relations with neighboring countries (through NAFTA agreement) enhance democracy in Canada. Beyond the effects of free trade, there are other important factors that have been contributing to the erosion of dominance within Canada—and these will be developed. Among them are national identity politics, and a n economic chasm between the developing part of the country compared to the backward and poorer regions. These are compounded by a variety of economic and free trade influences that are addressed. In a free trade context the two are fused, while in a non-free trade scenario they become quite distinct. When this distinction is evident, as it has been in Canada, state security entails the government’s propensity to depend on coercion to perpetuate the interests and institutions of the leading economic and political classes. Free trade, on the other hand, involves the majority population’s attempt to shield itself from state compulsion, as well as the effort to promote a new economic and political order that reflects the interests of the society and the state.
Works Cited
Clement, W. Understanding Canada: Building on the New Canadian Political Economy McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005.
Irwin, D. A. Free Trade Under Fire: Second Edition. Princeton University Press; 2 edition, 2005.
Mankiw, N. G. Macroeconomics. Worth Publishers; 6th edition, 2006.
Roberts, R. The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall; 3 edition, 2006.
Rugman, A. M. Multinationals and Canada–U.S. Free Trade (Critical Issues Facing the Multinational Enterprise). University of South Carolina Press; 1st edition, 2000.
Sawyer, W. Ch. International Economics (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall; 3 edition, 2003.