The global political pendulum is now swinging back to the middle from the right, but is this because of moderates, or more extreme leftists? Many European governments today wade through compromise and coalition-building within polarised political arenas. Their populations have not become more moderate; instead, they are near evenly divided between political extremes.

The political tribulations of affluent European countries pale in comparison to the challenges faced by the developing world. The common thread among so-called “emerging markets” -- Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria, and perhaps Lebanon -- is the issue of basic socio-economic needs: What is in globalization for us? The promise of IMF restructuring assistance, foreign direct investment, increased trade and human capital development has faded for many of these countries, leaving them deeply in debt and still wondering when they will emerge. Their internal political climate is affected by this global disillusionment. This provokes volatility.

But voters in these countries want to preserve their ballot boxes. They have vivid memories of coups, military rule, heavy intervention and support for repressive right-wing regimes that were tacitly, if not openly, supported by Washington.

The unilateralist posture of the current U.S. administration, and its support for an attempted Venezuelan coup in 2002 have brought back eerie memories of dictators and restricted freedoms. Many assume that the leader of globalization is returning to its old ways. Such presumptions have led to support for populist champions with simple economic platforms, such as Lula de Silva, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Germans voted for state interventionism and social programs when they elected Angela Merkel -- originally from eastern Germany. Italians re-enlisted Romano Prodi in Italy, and Daniel Ortega is back in Nicaragua.

For a similar pattern, look to Iran. President Ahmadinejad ran for president on a platform calling for the return of the original ideals of the Iranian Revolution. He sounded similar to Ortega’s position in the 1980s. Although Iran does not have a massive foreign debt or many of the other chronic difficulties of emerging markets, it does care about its economy. And Iranian voters elected their president based on his campaign pledge to address economic issues and rejuvenate a “can do, will do” spirit.

Iran’s economy is rapidly embracing globalization, opening its market in careful and studied steps. An overhaul of the tax code, revised trade laws and gradual privatization over the last three to four years are showing remarkable results. Despite belligerent rhetoric and diplomatic tensions, trade between Iran and its neighbours has never been greater.

The champions of social and populist causes are speaking from a common platform. As with the inception of OPEC by Iran and Venezuela (which occurred at a meeting in Baghdad), their manifesto is just a simple message to their opposition: Political conquest should not be confused with economics. This message is a reminder that sustainable globalization can only be about two-way trade, jobs, old-fashioned direct investment and the exchange of ideas. What is most fascinating is that Goldwater’s “Red China” got this message clearly. Chinese firms are busy handling investments that amount to a trillion-dollar pile of cash, a sum more than all exports of the above-mentioned economies. This kind of exchange might well signal the reformulation of international relations as we have known them.