The idea of the Global Village and its challenges
About 50 years ago McLuhan (1962) predicts that the global village is going formation, where the world is characterized by the identity fanaticism diminishing, increased and rapid development of technology and information support the acceleration of the world without borders. This thought is backed up again with the words of Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and The Last Man (2005), which explains that the debate dialectical philosophical and dialectical historical has expired and won by the liberal democratic thought, this victory was not just in the realm of thought but also in the real global events.
In thinking of this victory, according to Francis Fukuyama was marked by the success of liberal paradigm in finding synthesis and bridge the contradiction which has been a debate in the west, the view of Marxism-materialism dialectic says that the fundamental problem in the world due to the opposition of the economy between the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and proletariat (labor/worker) has ended with the success of liberal democracy, which is mainly applied by Western Europe and the United States, liberal democracy has become a universal understanding that can be applied by anyone and any country, because the universal principles capable of giving life egalitarian, fair and prosperous.
Although Fukuyama’s opinion is axiomatic, at least well-known columnist Thomas Friedman tried to evaluate this view with his book The World is Flat that raised discussion of the cosmopolitan issues, in a nutshell, explains that globalization has the effect of success at a time of failure. This success marked by lowering barriers in the southern countries to achieve prosperity, which had before only owned by the countries in the northern hemisphere (US and EU) and now is starting to spread to countries in the southern hemisphere such as Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa.
Trends in the New World Order toward Neoprotectionism
To the other hand, there was also a failure and if we call the global village was a success as the European Union. A few moments ago the “Brexit” surprised us, which is the act of the United Kingdom who decided to exit from the EU. That most of the consideration was built on the problem of identity: that the influx of foreign immigrants with a large number had been taking jobs from locals (read: native) Briton.
In the case of United States, there was also other phenomena, related to the popularity of Donald Trump, the country that the level of literacy to read is the highest in the world, where US campuses are the best in the world, but why someone like Trump with the slogan of “chauvinist” and “racist” could even make him as elected president for superpower country, briefly at least Trump attract US voters with three main programs: The first is the abolition of the Trans Pacific Partnership (Cross-Pacific Partnership), Trump argued that the treaty would undermine the independence of the US economy.
Trump introduces economic strategy put America at the first, known as the “Putting America First” and said it would bring back jobs and industries to America. The second is to give admission rates of 35% to the car industry who perform manufacturing processes in Mexico, which will make the car companies choose to strengthen their manufacturing industries in the United States. The third is ordering electronic products manufacture and communications company such as Apple is no longer in China but returned to the US (Moore: 2016).
Actually, from this phenomenon, we can analyze the trend of world order towards new barriers (Neo-Protectionism), where domestic economic interests in synergy with the spirit of nationalism to impede the flow of economic dominance from the foreign countries (Hart & Spero: 2006). Therefore we do not have to rush to say that the world is completely connected and increasingly decrease barriers between countries, due to the fact of the world other than the flat are also curved as it was written by David Smick (2008).
The world is never separated from the internal anomaly, when there is an openness but also there is a desire to close themselves: Internal Anomaly (Bambang Sugiharto: 2014), simple things we can see from the study Karla Hoff and Joseph Stiglitz (1999) that the trend of developed countries in terms of economy that is pursuing a strategy of protection internally, so the capacity of industrial commodities protected by the state from the invasion of foreign products, while overseas markets pushing to disseminate liberalization, so the domestic product is easy to enter foreign markets; this is exemplified by the developed countries trade regime in the US, the European Union (Stiglitz: 2005) and East Asia (Kim: 1999) which implement protective policies for protecting infant industry (such as agriculture) and continue to create non-tariff barriers.
Findings: Impact for Indonesia
Trend of neo-protectionism (constraint) that hit in Indonesia can be divided into two types: the first is the natural barriers that occur due to the inability and sluggish move by domestic productions to seize the global market, the competitiveness of Indonesia who is weak due to the high level of dependence on the extractive sectors, which makes us stuck on the resource curse (Kojima: 2000).
The second is the institutional barriers. This problem occurs because of the government’s policy in developed countries increasingly protecting its domestic market, making it difficult for Indonesian products to enter the market in northern hemisphere countries such as the United States and the European Union.
In 1993 Huntington’s thesis described the perspective against Endism (liberal-capitalism) by Francis Fukuyama. A thesis refuted and considered folly by Edward Said (2001) in his article titled “Clash of Ignorance.”
Edward Said considered the idea thinking of Huntington was obnoxious to define civilization. Then, Edward said explained the idea of classical ideology which is dichotomy no longer relevant, because the identity has been globalized; assimilation and acculturation are immense, especially if we look at it from the perspective of postmodernism, in which the boundary bulkhead identity is increasingly blurred and mutual imitate each other.
I would agree Richard Robison and Vedi R. Hadiz (2004) thought, which considers a political identity nothing more than protection business of oligarchic groups (the economic elites) in particular. This is in line with the views of Airlangga Pribadi, that the issue of economic competition as a base structure is embodied in an era of the democratic power struggle that is using the identity issue as a pretext and justification.
This is an era where democracy is flawed because establish to solely fight between the elite group. By Jeffrey Winters (2011) oligarchs not against democracy, but instead, use it to further smooth the dominance of their group, and inevitably progressing the world toward neoprotectionism.