The Democratic Deficit in Global Governance (original) (raw)

Democracy and Global Governance

The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory, 2018

Is it feasible to democratize the powerful institutions of global governance that currently work to advance globalization processes, making them more responsive to the needs and interests of the people affected by their policies? This chapter discusses the motivation for addressing this “democratic deficit” at the transnational level, in the context of the inequalities in power and resources engendered by globalization and its institutional framework. It critically analyses two main lines of argument put forward for democratization of global governance—the “all subjected” and the “all affected” principles—and then proposes a reformulation of them for this new context. It concludes by considering some concrete directions for fulfilling democratic norms transnationally, including ways of introducing greater transparency and accountability in transnational institutions, as well as more extensive changes that would enable people to gain substantial control over the forces and structures...

Is there a ‘democratic deficit’in World Politics? A Framework for analysis

2004

Abstract Many scholars, commentators and politicians assert that international organizations suffer from a severe 'democratic deficit'. This article proposes a basic framework for evaluating this applied ethical critique of global governance. It rests on two criteria. The first, philosophical coherence, dictates consistent adherence to one or more conception of democratic legitimacy (libertarian, pluralist, social democratic or deliberative).

Democracy in global governance: The promises and pitfalls of transnational actors

Global Governance, 2010

The participation of transnational actors in global policymaking is increasingly seen as a means to democratize global governance. Drawing on alternative theories of democracy and existing empirical evidence, we assess the promises and pitfalls of this vision. We explore how the structuring and operation of international institutions, public-private partnerships, and transnational actors themselves may facilitate expanded participation and enhanced accountability in global governance. We find considerable support for an optimistic verdict on the democratizing potential of transnational actor involvement, but also identify hurdles in democratic theory and the practice of global governance that motivate a more cautious outlook. In conclusion, we call for research that explores the conditions for democracy in global governance through a combination of normative political theory and positive empirical research.

Democracy and Global Governance. The Internal and External Levers

The paper explores the methods to introduce democratic devices in global governance. The first part makes an attempt to define what a democratic deficit is. The second part provides some benchmark to identify when and how international organizations, the most important and visible part of global governance, correspond to the values of democracy. The third part presents the internal and the external levers. The internal lever is defined as the ways in which democratization within countries helps to foster more transparent, accountable and participatory forms of global governance. The external lever is defined as the ways in which international organizations contribute to promote democratic transition and consolidation in their members. Neither the internal nor the external levers work effectively if they are left to inter-governmental bargaining only. An active participation of non-governmental actors is needed in order to make them effective. The paper finally discuss a list of proposals to democratize global governance.

The ideal of democracy in global governance

Global Governance and Democracy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Book, Chapter 3, Edward Elgar, 2015

The paper constructs a conceptual framework for understanding the democratic ideal in a global context. Two normative refinements of the democratic ideal are set out, as well as two institutional orderings. These are then combined into four paths to global democracy, while each is critically ascertained.

The Coming of Age of Global Democracy?: An Introduction

year: 2008, 2008

Even if we could find an agreement concerning the appropriate degree of centralization, however, the question would remain: what constitutional goals such an international order should pursue? Should it primarily oversee the enforcement of basic human rights and perhaps the 'juridification' of international relations? Or should it also attempt to "govern"-in a democratic way-over economic and environmental affairs, and perhaps even over social and cultural issues? That is, should the final aim be to mirror the classical nation-state, or not? Looking at the fierceness with which the democratic deficit of WTO law, IMF governance or the Security Council's use of force has recently been discussed, this is a highly relevant question. Independent of the lack of institutional advances, the de facto political integration of the world seems unstoppable. Many people, moreover, are dedicated to making the global setup more 'legitimate', mostly by making it mirror more closely the political institutions of the classical nation-state. But can the same type of legitimacy really be recreated at levels beyond the nation-state? Are we able to export "democratic principles and practices […] from the domestic to the regional or global level" (Cabrera 2008, 223)? In short: is some form of democracy across and beyond national borders possible at all? Some authors are fairly pessimistic in this regard. Robert Dahl, for instance, famously argued that global institutions "are not and are not likely to be democratic" (1999, 32). Others, such as Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss (2000; 2001), are more optimistic and propose a series of institutional reforms to democratize our world order. For them the idea of 'democracy beyond borders' 3 is a litmus test for our basic ideas about democracy. In this special issue, a number of renowned political philosophers and social scientists critically examine the assumptions behind the democratization of global politics and offer different models of global democracy. In this introductory contribution, we will briefly indicate why global democracy has become such a hotly debated issue within political theory, and survey some of the theoretical challenges and objections that proponents of global democracy often encounter.

Global Democracy without Global Justice? Why a Procedural Account is Flawed

Global democracy is now widely recognized as an important field of academic study and political activism -and democracy itself has increasingly become an empirical standard against which the performance of international institutions is evaluated by different audiences. Yet what is empirically called for in the name of global democracy often deviates from what a reasonable normative standard would demand. While scholarship and activism mainly stresses the need for institutional reforms of existing organizations -for instance the abolishment of the veto power for the permanent members of the UN Security Council -a reasonable normative standard would require us to focus on the structural preconditions that make democratic governance possible in the first place. To be sure, many of these preconditions are valuable on their own terms. The argument put forth in this paper is, however, that their realization is also an essential element of democratic governance on a global scale. Taking global democracy seriously thus requires us to refocus the debate on issues such as access to education and health and the guarantee of minimal levels of subsistence. In short, it requires us to rethink the link between global democracy and global justice.

Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation-State

European Journal of International Relations, 2000

International institutions not only increase system effectiveness or output legitimacy, but are also a normatively plausible response to the problems for democracy that are caused by globalization. In this way, international institutions also increase input legitimacy. It is therefore a false approach to pin down the problem of democracy beyond the nation-state as a choice between `effective problem-solving through international institutions' and `democratic political processes'. At the same time, it is indisputable that the actual functioning of these international institutions does not meet democratic standards. By correctly pointing to the deficits of current international institutions, sceptics too quickly conclude that most deficits in the working of international institutions cannot be remedied. The sceptical argument is founded on two more or less explicit background hypotheses that can be empirically challenged. The first background hypothesis states that a demos can...

Global Governance: Some Concerns About Authentic Democracy Addressed

I n t h i s p a p e r I t a k e u p a c o m m o n l y v o i c e d c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e v i a b i l i t y o f g l o b a l governance in general, and cosmopolitan democracy in particular, namely, whether genuine democracy can be achieved at the international level. Some (such as, Will Kymlicka) argue that genuine democracy is only possible within nation-states, because authentic deliberation requires common nationality or identity, which generates the trust and solidarity necessary to sustain deliberation and democracy. Through analysis of the argument and consideration of the requirements of genuine democracy, we can see that these concerns can be addressed. I go on to suggest that the major challenge facing models of global governance is not one concerning lack of common identity, solidarity, or opportunities for authentic deliberation, rather, it lies elsewhere. We can assess global governance arrangements in terms o f t w o m a i n v a r i a b l e s , w h i c h a r e s o m e t i m e s i n t e n s i o n : e f f e c t i v e n e s s a n d accountability. We want systems of global governance to incorporate both considerations. Accountability can take the form of democratic procedures but alternative forms of accountability are also possible. Furthermore, a system of governance that both effectively attends to people's interests and is suitably a c c o u n t a b l e c a n c e r t a i n l y c l a i m t o h a v e a d e q u a t e d e m o c r a t i c c r e d e n t i a l s o n t h e "Responsive Democracy" view I discuss.