Vox Populi Vox Dei

A major transistion in theory of governance has taken place. We have transistioned from a theory of goverment that held that goverment was acceptable because it was the will of god or the gods and that right flowed from them to one where goverment is only legitimate if it is by consent of the governed. Note that this does not neccesarily mean democracy merely consent.
We can see this in the langauge. We go from the "divine right of kings", "mandate of heaven", "vox dei vox populi" to the phrase "the will of the people".

This change in phrases reflects the belief, as expounded by Locke, that people have the right and the responsibility to govern. His is not an argument that they would be the best governors - but that it is their duty to so choose their goverment. Some things in life you have to do yourself and according to this view goverment is one of them.
This has changed everything. Religion is no longer worth controlling because power does not flow from it. Freedom of religion then becomes inevitable. Religious wars have all but ceased where this tenet is accepted. Instead that energy is now channeled to controlling the hearts and minds of the people - manufacturing consent if you will. This is done either through the soft persuasion of a political campaign and power of political networks or the hard persuasion of secret police, information control, and gulags. Both stalin and hitler accepted this tenet of Locke's. That is why their regimes were both so concerned with controlling what their people were thinking and they both acted in similar ways even though their philosophies were wildly different in other ways.

The first order of business for all rulers is to stay in power. If rulers will not manufacture the neccesary consent then rest assured another will.

Social Effects of Globalisation

Globalisation transforms societies. It alters the internal balance of prestige in a nation. Those factions most benefitted seek to accelerate the process of globalization by using their increased influence and prestige with the rulers and the populace. Despite periods of reaction and breakdowns in the international order they are generally successful.
By way of further explanation: A non globalised country is dominated naturally by warriors (loot, land, triumphs) and religious (stability, population) elites. Artists/Entertainers of various stripes have their place. Merchants, scientists/magicians are generally on the fringe.
Globalisation throws these elites and their counterparts from other nations together. This has a synergistic effect for the merchants (trade), scientists/magicians (flow of ideas) and cultural elites (bigger audiences). They become more important to the nation and their prestige increases. The once dominant elites falter. Warriors are effected as war becomes more ritualized and its outcome more predictable and less profitable compared to trade. Religion suffers also. Different customs and beliefs makes people question the ones they have been taught. Exposure to different self contained religious systems causes doubt to take place and allows for atheism and agnosticism to take root. The faithful that do remain are generally less committed than their predecessors despite momentary reactions.
The new elite then conspire with their counterparts in other nations to their mutual benefit. Globalisation then increases not necessarily because it now benefits its host nation but because it benefits those who are most advantaged by globalisation that already exists. Nations are powerless to stop this because to reduce globalisation dramatically has drastic and dire consequences. (See Smoot-Hawley, Great Depression, WWII)
Consider the two great eras of globalisation in world history: late antiquity and the past couple of hundred years. How well does this match their pattern?