Democratic Deficit in Global Governance - Essay Example

Democratic Deficit in Global Governance Democratic Deficit in Global Governance There are different complex issues which could be solved by democratic global governance including nuclear proliferation, financial crisis effecting global economies, environmental issues etc. Such problems continue to exist even though there are many global governing institutions. Critics claim that there are consistent democratic defunct in the global governance in relation to the legitimacy and accountability of global governance institutions. In this paper we shall broadly analyze the role of global governance and its need in the contemporary world order. This paper aims to evaluate democratic deficit in global governance in terms of accountability and legitimacy. The democratic deficit would be evaluated in terms of global governing environmental and financial institutions. Introduction: In the contemporary world order, it is being observed that there are some of the issues and crisis related to state relations within a global community that are leading to more complicated scenarios. The reason behind complications of these crisis and issues is that the sovereign states are not self-sufficient when it comes to solving such problems. The crisis could be as diversified as the relations of a particular state with other states. The issues and crisis could be observed in almost every aspect of state affairs. The inability of sovereign governments to address such crisis leads to consolidation of one or more issues with drastic outcomes. In order to tackle the consequences, a group of states would work efficiently. In such a situation, it is believed that only democratic global governance could solve the problems with respect to working for different institutions. Global Governance: A commission on Global Governance was formed in 1993, which was largely funded by the United Nations Development Program (Lamb 1998). Global Governance is a gradual process which has been underway since the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 (Arnaud and Gustavo 2008). The Global Governance Commission has given the following definition of governance: “the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken” (IIED 2002). The activities of Global Governance include monitoring the work done y the governments, efforts of the private sector, and initiatives taken by the international organizations and civil society towards “achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals” (World Economic Forum 2010). The initiatives taken by the Global Governance mainly deal with the issues of poverty, conflict, health, education, environment, human rights, and hunger (World Economic Forum 2010). Most Global Governance organizations include both political and bureaucratic elements since they contain a legislative function (representational) and an executive (bureaucratic) function within the whole organization (Koppell 2007). Some of the Global Governance Institutes include Global Governance Watch, One World Trust, Centre for International Governance Innovation and Coalition for Democratic World Government, etc. Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst explain in their book, International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, that global governance is not “global government, it is not a single world order, it is not a top-down, hierarchical structure of authority...It is the collection of governance-related activities, rules, and mechanisms, formal and informal, existing at a variety of levels in the world today. We refer to these as the pieces of global governance” (Karns and Mingst 2004, p.4). Many governmental and non-governmental actors are involved in the establishment and functioning of Global Governance organizations. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Thomas Risse-Kappen, and James Rosenau believe that the four key actors which play an important role in global governance include: States, IGOs, NGOs, and Experts (Karns and Mingst 2004). States are very important since they create Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) and set for them norms and objectives, IGOs are important since the individuals holding IGO office include the UN secretary and undersecretaries general, and directors general of key organizations such as World Health Organizations and World Trade Organization, UN High Commissioners, etc (Keohane 2002). NGOs are involved in governance from global to local and operate in a legal vacuum at the international level, while experts from different countries, institutes, and agencies help organizations to understand the science behind environmental problems, such as climate change, to provide support for making policies and introducing new rules (Karns and Mingst 2004).The demand for greater accountability, gender balance, and transparency of these international institutions has been increasing with time (Keohane 2002). These demands are usually made by the NGO’ and the Civil Society groups. Need of Democratic Global Governance and Globalization: The basic need of democratic global governance is due to the need of equal development of global village. It is supposed to be the main goal of global governing institutions to initiate policies which could help in providing countries with their rights to develop as other developed counties. A number of factors have been observed as the reasons behind problems which are required to be solved through effective democratic global governance. Globalization: The biggest Factor: Among different sources of problems, globalization is the biggest factor that is influencing inter-state relations which often leads to problems for other states. The process of globalization had greatly contributed in the global threats to economies, politics, environment and planet etc. The increased global problems could not be solved by general laws. The global problems have taken the nature of major problems which require states to consolidate their point of view. Interrelated Aspects: The interrelated aspects of global world had been founded as another biggest factor that calls for global governance. The problem of nuclear proliferation needs to be solved by every state but it could not be solved because of terrorism. Similarly, in case of global medicinal problems, there is an interrelated aspect of technology that leads to the need of global governance. Economical and financial crisis is another problem that calls the help by global governance. Transferring Levels: The transferring levels and homogeneity of nation-states have become another cause of global governance. In the contemporary international politics, power and development comes in handy and are causing the collision of global problems. The levels of development and power in the contemporary world are quite fluctuating that increases the need of global governance. Democratic Deficit in Global Governance Financial Institutions: There is no state in the world whose economy could survive on its own. The cross-border financial activities lead into crisis which affects domestic politics and social structure. Due to the emerging trends of cross-border financial processes, it had become mandatory to create financial infrastructure. The need of infrastructure could only be fulfilled with the international working process of codes and standards for effective governance of financial crisis and regulatory processes. In terms of global governance for the financial institutions, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are two financial institutions that contributed in the economical well-being of international market in post-war financial crisis including debt-crisis and great depression. International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank funded many poor countries with different prospects of lending money (Woods 2008). Critics claim that global governance by the financial institutions lacked accountability because these institutions could not provide equality to all the countries including underdeveloped and developing (Carvalho and Kregel 2009). Secrecy on its verge Global governance is required in financial institutions in order to solve the interrelated financial crisis that directly hit the global financial market. Financial market is itself a combination of states which are democratic in terms of governance in their respective states. Thus democratic legitimacy is required for global governance as well. The biggest fallacy that has been observed in the working process of global governance in terms of financial institutions is subjected to democratic deficit. In the context of democracy, it is important that decisions for global governance must be mutually taken and the implementation of such decisions is should not be done in secrecy. According to the critics there is an immense secrecy about the working process of financial institutions which are contributing to global governance (Haas 2003). Codes and Standards for All: Basel committee was originated right after the financial crisis of 2008 in order to counter the effects of financial crisis throughout the world. Basel committee was destined to deal with codes and standards for the financial regulation by providing restricted membership to countries which were developed. Basel committee excludes the membership of countries which are underdevelopment and developing countries as well such as India, Russia and China etc. The members of Basel committee are G10 countries such as Japan, Belgium, Canada, United States etc. The committee membership is limited to chosen countries but its rules for financial regulation are adopted by other countries as well. It is the democratic deficit of global governing financial institutions that they are proposing initiatives and strategies which would help in regulations for banking. Such regulatory solutions would only work better in developed economies. Developing countries are not capable enough to go through such new imposed banking solutions due to the lack of experience and expertise (Desai and Said 2004). Policy-Based Funding: Previously, global governance was being done by International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the best possible ways that included lenient policies for funding poor countries. In comparison with the previous decades, global governing through IMF has now become policy-based funding. The main purpose of global governance is to help states get away with problems which have been directed by the financial crisis of another state (Vines and Gilbert 2004). But due to the increasing policy based- funding, it had become impossible for the funded countries to pay their debts on the obligated time period. The main reasons which have been proposed by the economists claim that the rising inability of debt-holding countries is increased tax amounts. It is thus considered to be a democratic deficit that increased tax amount could be a problem for underdeveloped countries. If the global governing financial institutions would continue to increase the amount of tax payment then only half developed region of the world would be given the opportunity to gain from democratic global governance. Global governing financial institutions are therefore regarded as democratically defecated (Vines and Gilbert 2004). United States: Mover and Shaker: It is important to realize the fact that global governance needs to be democratic in nature. Global governance needs to be done with effective democratic legitimacy. In the context of democracy legitimacy, it could be said that International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were created by United States. In the contemporary world order, it is Unites States that plays the role of a mover and shaker. The global governing financial institutions, IMF and World Bank were originated by United States but in real terms it is observed that they support American interest. United State did not play any vital role in reducing the risks of financial crisis. The democratic deficit had been observed to enhance by United States regulation process. America continued to sustain and encourage deals in brokers, financial entities, and investment banks having complete knowledge of black hole that is risk factor (Gwin and Feinberg 1990). Need of transparency: During financial crisis of 2008, the global governing financial institutions bombarded people with the ideas that free-market economy would be the way out from the financial crisis. According to the critics, the view regarding free-market economy did not present any solid solution because such institutions greatly lacked democracy and transparency. The lack of transparency was observed due to the inability of G10 states to find better regulations for the finance for instance the Basel committee members could not find measures to save their economies from the effects of financial crisis of 2008. Thus it could be another addition in the list of democratic deficit of global governance (Vines and Gilbert 2004). Democratic Deficit in Global Governance environmental issues: Currently, environmental issues have taken the nature of one of the most complicated problem being faced by the world. The factors which have led to environmental issues are increasingly being the main focus of debates in international politics. Nature is beyond the limits of territories and it affects each and every state in the region thus it also affects the global relationship among different. States could only join hands to make the environmental problems solved. Apparently, the idea of global governance for environmental issues seems to be the only way out to refrain from activities leading into environmental problems (Esty and Ivanova 2004). But the significant concern here is that many critics believe that even in the global governance for environmental issues include democratic deficit. A number of global governing environmental institutions including United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and World Metrological Organization (WMO) etc. have been trying to counter environmental issues such as genetic manipulation, reduction and extinction of resources, nuclear risks affecting environment etc (Speth and Haan 2006). Critics claim that the global governing environmental institutions are filled with democratic deficits. The reason behind such a claim by critics is due to the fact that the programs and initiatives by global governing environmental institutions have put many limitations on the industries of states. The main focus of global governance must be governing of problems so that there are no economical or social problems affecting states relationships. Environmental institutions have failed to project the idea that in case the industrial limitations would be imposed then it will affect states in terms of economics. Environmental problems are interrelated with many other global institutions thus global governing environmental institutions must in comprehend financial, societal and other institutions before taking initiatives (Chasek, et al. 2006). The sad reality is that there is no support of the world when it comes to solve the problems regarding environment. Despite of presence of environmental laws, there is no legitimate global governance of environmental problems because states have conflicting perspectives when it comes to implement solutions. The reason behind the conflict is that industrial countries refrain from commitments which would decrease their industrial productivity. United States, Japan, United Kingdom are among states which are regarded as industrial countries. Such countries are in fact the ones which are taking active part in proposing global governance for environmental problems but they propose solutions according to their interest (Young 1997). The industrial waste had always been the main focus of environmental institutions but there are no positive end results to industrial waste problem. In fact industrial countries have continued to focus on their industrial production rather than decreasing the emission of industrial waste from factories and workshops. On the other hand, underdeveloped countries have always been blamed for pollution based problems as they are technologically weak and cannot install pollution controlled systems. Developing countries such as India and China have been constantly imposed by environmental restrictions while economically sound countries such as United and United Kingdom remain as major contributors to pollutions and other environmental problems. This is the biggest democratic deficit that could be observed in the global governing environmental institutions. Inactive Kyoto Protocol: Among many other global governing institutions, Kyoto Protocol is a program which operates with democratic deficits. Kyoto Protocol was an initiation of limiting green house gases. The protocol agreement would have come to active working if any state would have signed it. United States in the year 2003, disagreed with the protocol objectives. President George W. Bush rejected to sign the protocol for United States but it rather proposed that United States would spend $1 billion on the green technology in order to control green house gases. Kyoto Protocol got support only from private firms such as BP, Shell and other private firms where as the governmental funding did become a dream within few months of proposition of Kyoto Protocol. Countries simply rejected Kyoto Protocol because they addressed the protocol to be unsupportive as it made no sense. The negative claim was that only few countries were ready to limit the emission of green house gases which is a failing idea because other countries were still emitting higher amount of green house gases. This is the biggest democratic deficit of the global governing environmental institutions that fails to solve problems and provide equality to every state (Victor 2001). Conclusion: Through the above analysis of global governance and the aspect in which it is operating, it comes to our understanding that there are number of democratic deficits which could be analyzed in global governing institutions. The financial global governing institutions have been observed to have democratic deficits which are due to lack of transparency, codes and standards which do not safeguard all states with equality, increased secrecy and major states which operate only within their own interest. Similarly, global governing environmental institutions constitute democratic deficits such as conflicting perspectives of states, failures of institutions in proposing equal levels of solutions and state interest industrial productivity. All these democratic deficits of global governance remove democratic legitimacy and accountability. List of References Arnaud, B. and Gustavo, M., 2008. Rethinking Global Governance. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 July 2010]. Carvalho, F. and Kregel, J., 2009. Financial Crisis and Democratic Deficit. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analyses. Chasek, P., Downie, D., Brown, J. and Porter, G., 2006. Global Environmental Politics. New York: Westview Press. Desai, M. and Said, Y., 2004. Global governance and Financial Crises. Washington: Routledge. Esty, D. and Ivanova, M., 2004. Globalization and Environmental. Connecticut: Yale Centre of Envoirnmental Law and Policy. Global Governance Watch, 2010. About Global Governance Watch. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 July 2010]. Gwin, C. and Feinberg, R., 1990. The International Monetary Fund in a Multipolar World. New York: Transaction Publishers. Haas, P., 2003. Addressing the Global Governance Deficit. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts University of Massachusetts. IIED, 2002. Designing a New Architecture for Global Environmental Governance. London: International Institute of Environment and Development. Karns, M.P. and Mingst, K.A., 2004. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Keohane, R.O., 2002. Global Governance and Democratic Accountability. PhD Thesis. Durham: Department of Political Science, Duke University. Koppell, J.G., 2007. Structure of Global Governance: Explaining the Organizational Design of Global Rulemaking Institutions. Preliminary Draft. Chicago: International Studies Association. Lamb, H., 1998. Introduction to Global Governance. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 July 2010]. Speth, J. and Haan, P., 2006. Global Environmental Governance. Washington: Island Press. Victor, D., 2001. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vines, D. and Gilbert, C., 2004. The IMF and its Critics: Reform of Global Financial Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woods, N., 2008. The Commonwealth of Australia. In The International Monetary Fund. pp.953-68. World Economic Forum, 2010. Global governance. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 July 2010]. Young, O., 1997. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. New York: MIT Press. Read More