Global Governance

In Muppidi’s article on global governance, there seems to be a fine line between a state having too much control over others, and then being blamed for not controlling other countries in the way that the world has deemed necessary. In particular, Tony Blair is quoted in the article expressing his idea that democracy, freedom, and justice are all desirable political principles that should underlie global governance. Traditionally, governance has been associated with political authority, institutions, and control. Governance in this particular sense denotes formal political institutions that aim to coordinate and control interdependent social relations and that have the ability to enforce decisions. The problem Muppidi explains, is that “…What we get with Mallaby, Ikenberry, and Blair is global governance without the voice, consent, or participation of those who are to be governed.” Concerning the colonial order of the world, Muppidi states that global governance would both structure the world into the governors and the governed, and also would possess power which would be alloted to subjects of governance but not the objects.

This power, or productive power as Muppidi says, of the subjects of governance relates to the materialization of colonial global orders. However, with this power, comes responsibility. Postcolonial global governance refelects upon actors’ inability to deliver on their expected responsibilities. The institutions and authorities given these powers can unfortunately misread or misunderstand the scope and definition of their power, sometimes creating more problems instead of solving others. In closing, Muppidi talks of anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, and explains that global goverance needs almost a cushion, to leave space for differences and to learn and seek knowledge from others, or else the production of colonial orders of global governance are unavoidable.