Global Governance and the Democratic Deficit - Assignment Example

? Global Governance and the Democratic Deficit Introduction The Westphalian nation system is the primary mode of organisation in the existing world order. Here, the nation states are the sovereign powers within their respective territories. However, multinational companies, transnational trade regimes and global governance institutions do play a prominent role in the governance of many countries. The democratic deficit in the present denotes at two aspects of the new world order; the nation states have formal legal power but the multinational institutions have substantial economic and political power. However, it is important to note that institutions of global governance do not have de jure state powers. Indeed, it is very much possible to see that global institutions such as International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organisation (WTO) do play an active role in the governance, political and economic organisation of many countries from around the world. Importantly, the issue of deficit of democracy primarily arises from the fact that while the nation states are at least theoretically accountable to the national civil society, the international institutions are accountable to none. All the nation states do not wield equal power in many of the transnational institutions. Moreover, if we look at the internal structure and power balance within, most of the international institutions are tilting towards the rich countries of the Global South. Global Institutions, Global Governance and Lack of Global Democracy The making of accelerated globalisation was characterised by the shift of governance from the national to the global. The nation state is being increasingly challenged by the forces of globalisation. At present, the democracy is solely expressed through national governments and their institutions. In other words, the national parliament is the only abode of democracy. However, the rise of international organisations has led to their growing clutch on the national economies, politics and policies. It is followed the rise of unaccountable forces of neoliberal capitalism which effectively surpass any idea of national and popular sovereignty. It has led to a kind of global elite consolidation as there exists no world parliament. Still, the absence of world parliament does not automatically translated as the absence of global sovereignty. Global sovereignty certainly exists as the consolidated and concentrated power of global market forces and their institutions. It is primarily because of this lack of democracy within, the meetings of international finance and trade institutions attract huge resistance from activists and political groups from around the world. The voting rights in a major institution such international monetary fund is based on proportional vote wherein ‘one country, one vote’ principle is not followed. On the contrary, countries get their voting rights based on their economic share in the institution. The United States in particular and the West in general are also able to exert disproportional influence in the decision making bodes of IMF and World Bank. One of the major problems with international governance organisations is that they do not directly draw their legitimacy form any popular sources. In other words, the legitimacy of the global institutions is solely depended upon their ability to intervene and act decisively in certain situations and places. Although, there is a lot of talk on the emergence of a global civil society which could effectively counter the lack of democracy in global governance institutions, nothing yet has materialised. Conversely, the so-called global civil society itself is predominantly dominated by many Non Governmental Organisations which are accountable not to the people but to the funding agencies. In the question of transparency too, the status of global transnational organisations is not very different from the global finance or political institutions. Here, the very lack of representation of the voice of the developing world is compounded by the lack of ‘representiveness’ within transnational pro-democracy networks and intergovernmental institutions1. It is necessary to remember that that even the supposedly democratic United Nations Organisation (UNO) has only five permanent Security Council members with veto powers. It goes without saying that these countries are able to flex their muscles against the countries of lesser power. The problem is that most of the national governments are very much controlled by international bodies such as IMF and World Bank so that even the people in these countries have lost their belief and hope in the governments. The lack of democracy within the global governance institutions is not only a question of their internal governance as it also adversely affects the functioning of national democracies. The irony is that the rich countries in the Global North enjoy extraordinary power in the governance of these transnational institutions, including veto powers. There have been many proposals for creating a ‘popularly elected global assembly’ (PEGA) to counter the democratic deficit at the global level2. It has been argued that the efforts at democratising the global governance institutions with the injection of INGOs have only led to the worsening of matters. To develop a truly global democracy, it is necessary to introduce much more substantial measures to the existing world order such as endowing the United Nations’ General Assembly with more executive powers and creating a global parliament with representatives from every country and so on. The global institutions at maximum have internal accountability shared by the NGOs and other civil society groups, however, it is necessary to replace it with external accountability by citizens and stakeholders. Conclusion The deficit of democracy within the international institutions has been a matter of many scholarly debates. The tensions between a decaying Westphalian system of nation states and an ascending market system of global governance have led to the serious erosion of democracy at many levels3. Popular sovereignty is effectively undermined when the global political and economic institutions enjoy more say over the national policies. Although, most of the transnational institutions do not have any de jure state powers, they seem to exert de facto state powers in many countries. It is especially true with the failed/failing states. Not only international institutions such as IMF and World Bank do not have internal democratic structures but also all the member states do not have equal powers regarding their governance. The case of international NGOs too is not different as they are not accountable to anyone except the funding agencies. The rule of international institutions mostly follows the ‘might is right’ principle. Notes 1. For further discussions on the lack of democracy, see Kopecky, Petr and Cas Mudde (eds) (2003) Uncivil Society? Contentious Politics in PostCommunist Europe. London: Routledge 2. The concept of PEGA is giggly contested by many theorists from the perspective deliberative democracy. For further discussion, see. Bohman, J. (2007) Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 3. Globalisation is characterised by the shift from nation state system to the empire of global market. See, Hardt, Michael, And Negri, Antonio, (2000) Empire, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Read More