The Concept of Democracy and Democratic Deficit - Coursework Example

International Institutions and Democracy Student Name Course Tutor Date International Institutions and Democracy Introduction In the past years, the world has experienced an unexceptional growth of laws that operate beyond national boundaries and organizations with global coverage. Nevertheless, these organizations have very little, if any, mechanisms of formal accountability. Such cases of division making process from political liability are known as democratic deficit. Democratic deficit is an inadequate degree of democracy within political institutions and processes in comparison with the theoretical ideal of the democratic government. Democratic deficit might be utilized to signify the underdevelopment or absence of the major democratic institutions and might also be utilized to describe the numerous ways through these organizations might fail to properly function such as lack of accountability and transparency, technocratic making of decisions, and insufficient engagement of citizens in the process of policy making1. This paper will look at the role of international institutions such as the WTO and OECD in hindering democracy and promoting democratic deficit. The concept of democracy and democratic deficit The universal notion of democracy is that it implies government by the citizens or by individual’s elected representatives. But because individuals are probable to be split amid themselves, the government is probable to be representative of majority of people and not of every individual. Accountability is an important aspect of contemporary democracy since representatives are in a way required to be responsible for their deeds, majorly through elections. True democracy needs the individuals to take part and cast their vote. Democratic deficit is a term that was initially utilized by individuals who disputed that European union suffered from absence of democracy, implying the expanding gap amid authority and power of European Union organizations2. Assessment of the degree of democratic deficit focus upon the practical elements of democracy, reflected within the schemes of decision making and representation. Thus, the idea of democratic deficit covers deformations in the flow of the influence from citizens to the government and its closely connected with the subject of democratic legitimacy. Global democracy deficit is the reality, or perception, of an accountability or liability gap amid the key global institutions propelling globalization and the nation states and people they influence. There are presently attempts to reform the process of decision making of key global institutions in order to better reflect the interest of poor countries and for the governments and individuals to have a better access to information and be able to hold these organizations accountable3 . The role of international organizations such as WTO and OECD in hindering democracy and promoting democratic deficit Democratic deficit is the difference amid authority and power, between output and input legitimacy, the uneven representation of a populace, hindrance of autocratic participants and detachment with the individuals. The major implication of democratic deficit is the lack of transparency and accountability. Combined elements of globalization, rising authority of transnational firms, national governments relinquishing responsibilities and power and a rising figure of non- governmental institutions have a greater say than before have all resulted to a renewed significance for aspect of democracy as well as international governance4. The WTO and OECD are major global institutions that intend at the governance of global economy for the gain of every member state involved and thus have a key influence on the global from an international level to an individual level. They have connections with several international issues, like war because was negatively affects economic growth. International institutions strive hard in their authority and power to prevent poverty and war and both poverty and war and both the WTO and OECD of the view that their policies benefit the growth of the economy and thus minimizes poverty5. Why international institutions hinder democracy International organizations are illegitimate since they are undemocratic. But the current international institutions are fairly weak and barely threatening. Majority of international institutions such as WTO and OECD are constitutionally democratic bodies with an equivalent distribution of votes distributed to every member country in spite of their financial and economic power and authority. Nevertheless, the poorer countries are not able to practice their democratic rights within the international trade concessions. In addition, unlike the self selected nongovernmental institutions, international organizations are usually greatly responsive to the national governments and may therefore claim indirect, real democratic legitimacy. Global organizations, in addition, merely enhance cooperation amid member nations and obtain some power through their efficacy. Global organizations might be weak, but their rules along with their resources may have influential effects6. International institutions are seen as promoting democratic deficit because not all member nations of global institutions are democratic themselves. Long delegation lines from numerous governments together with absence of transparency, usually weaken accountability. Even though the institutions might be state agents, they usually represent only particular portions of these states. Therefore, trade ministers take part in OECD and WTO meetings and finance ministers attend IMF meetings. To the outsiders, even in the same regime, these international institutions may seem like secretive and closed clubs. Expanding the perceived legality of global governance is thus a significant objective and needs more clarity on democracy, an increased understanding of liability and the readiness to experiment7. The mission of international institutions such as WTO, OECD, World Bank and IMF has been highly dominated by interests of private investors and producers. At times, their effects over these organizations operates via the authority and power of the United States as well as European governments and sometimes they operate autonomously or at cross objectives from the interests of developed nations. The illustration offered is that the financial and commercial interests have taken over the major agenda of these organizations and transformed them into imposers of open access to markets of poor nations. In addition, globalization has led to an increase in the influence of the private actors and the governance scheme of the international system has been changed8. International organizations like WTO and OECD do not promote democracy since they encompass huge geographical domains. Global organizations are thus inherently incapable of supporting direct democratic decision and deliberation. They characteristically do not have what fully developed organizations or direct interest or electoral group liability as nationwide political schemes offer. Therefore, standardizing the provision of international public goods needs not merely building on present types of multilateral organizations but also on developing and extending them so as to address issues of democracy, accountability and transparency9. Deliberative democracy theory and liberal theory of global relations are two most prominent theories that try to explain the relationship between accountability and democracy. The deliberative theory of democracy means that legitimacy or legality is generated amid several players and decisions are reached via a procedure where the participants examine the interest of one another and validate them in the perspective of the universal good. The core notion of liberal hypothesis is based on the civil society. The liberal theory presumes that the civil community is a political room in which voluntary associations and individuals try to shape the regulations and rules governing certain elements of societal life. Nationals are merged together into public society groups as an attempt of shaping the informal norms and formal laws of social relations10. Lack of accountability in international institutions International institutions like OECD, WTO, IMF and World Bank lack accountability because they pursue numerous objectives and when they are not able to fulfill one of them, they might allege that they were attempting to complete absolutely diverse objectives. Therefore, it is hard to evaluate their performance and subsequently, there is minimal chance for holding the international institutions accountable. There are numerous examples of moments when the international monetary fund was not able to fulfill its core objective, the facilitation of international economic stability. A good illustration is the manner in which this international organization dealt with the 1997 East Asia Crisis. Immediately after the East Asia Crisis emerged, this monetary institution alleged that its interventions demonstrated signs of economic recovery and success. In negation to this allegation, the rates of unemployment were dramatically increasing, wages were going down and gross domestic products of several nations were lower than they were prior to the crisis. In addition, other than making sure that the East Asian nations recovered and survived from this crisis as quickly as possible, IMF imposed market liberalization on these countries11. The manner in which the IMF selected to tackle with the East Asia Crisis suggest the probability that the international institution was working within the interest of particular monetary circles within the developed nations which could benefit from liberalization of the Asian markets. Additionally, the most obvious flaw of IMF as an international institution is lack of representatives of its board which make voting shares to be allotted depending on the outdated financial weight of the concern country12. Conclusion International organizations like WTO and OECD hinder democracy because they cover huge geographical domains. As a result, they are not able to support direct deliberation and democratic decisions. These institutions also hinder democracy because they are highly responsive to national governments and do not have sufficient power to facilitate cooperation amid member nations. International institutions promote economic deficit because not all member states are democratic themselves and long delegation lines from several governments along with lack of transparency weaken their accountability. They undertake numerous activities and it is hard to evaluate their performance so as to hold them accountable for their actions. References Collins, R., & White, N., (2011). International organizations and the idea of autonomy: Institutional dependence in the international legal order. London: Routledge. Sperling, V., (2012). Altered states: The globalization of accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duxbury, A., (2011). The participation of states in international organizations. The role of human rights and democracy. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Barnett, N., & Finnemore, M., (2008). The politics, powers, and pathologies of international organizations. International organizations 53 (4): 699-732. Dahl, R., (2010), ‘Can International Organizations Be Democratic? A Skeptic’s view’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steffek, J., (2009), ‘The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach’, European Journal of International Relations 9(2): 249-275 Stiglitz, J., (2010), ‘Democratizing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank: Governance and Accountability’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 16, 111–13913 Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2010), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance. USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Dervis, K., & Ozer, C., (2009), A Better Globalization: Legitimacy, Governance, and Reform. New York: Brooking Institution Press. Norris, P., (2012). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More