Democracy in World Politics:
Is international politics ultimately all about
power and interest, such that democracy
should
remain of marginal importance to international
relations?
And
If democratic states are `morally reliable', do
we need democratisation of the international
system itself, or can we just rely on coalitions
of these `reliable' states?
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%&'(!)*+!,-./'$0!)#+/!1223!
4%/!"#5$'*67*+!8*$7&+*6!9+7:/'57$;0!<*5$/'!&=!"'$5!7+!>+$/'+*$7&+*6!?/6*$7&+50!
@/A&B'*B;!7+!C&'6.!D&67$7B5!
Is international politics ultimately all about power and interest, such that democracy should
remain of marginal importance to international relations?
The study of International Relations (IR) has long been concerned with Realpolitik, a form of
political realism, which puts the self-help (military power) and survival (interest) motives of
states at the centre of its inquiry to explain the structural realities of the anarchic international
system, which is seen to exist under a constant threat of war. (Waltz, 1979) [Market] liberalism,
on the other hand, opposes the realist tradition and aims for the emancipation of humanity. In the
liberal tradition, the authority of democratic nations and the proliferation of free-markets are
believed to need to extend to the international system, in order to bring about peace, security
(Fukuyama, 1989) and happy consumers. The Neo-conservatives within the US administration
seem to have embraced both realism and market liberalism and combined the two into a mesh
that is hard to disentangle. Therefore, an obvious observation of the current era of US hegemony
does indeed reaffirm that power and the interest of agencies in the international arena are
prominent attributes of international politics. Powerful states, such as the US in Iraq, wage
unilateral wars to secure their strategic interests and at the same time support market liberalism,
while the biggest beneficiaries, multinational corporations (MNCs), smile broadly in the
background. In this regard, it appears as if notions of democracy, power, and interest are not only
juxtaposed, but are in fact feeding on each other, perpetuating but one form of democracy that
of market liberalism.
Global civil society has risen in opposition to these developments and contests the US unilateral
approach of spreading liberal democracy and capitalism through interventionism. The power of
civil society is defined not in terms of miliary capability, but rather in the sheer number of
people represented. Civil society groups are arguing for a global democracy, one that is bottom-
up and expresses different interests in a diverse world. (Kuldor, 2003) Innovative approaches to
democracy, such as cosmopolitan and deliberative approaches, are in favour of thinking about
international politics from a people's perspective and are interested in the reconfiguration of
democracy itself to put power and the fulfilment of diverse interests where it belongs into the
hand of the people. This paper therefore argues that while international politics revolves around
power and interest, it is important to think about how concepts of transnational democracy can
be utilized to democratise the international systems in ways that represent the interest of the
people and recognise them as the true foundation of authority.
Due to the confines of this paper, only cosmopolitan and deliberative approaches will be
considered here, as they together deliver the most `persuasive account' of transnational
democracy. These two concepts are of further interest as they represent a superimposition of
vertical bottom-up (reflexivity in public sphere, transcended into decisions) and horizontal
bottom-down (cosmopolitan international norms and law) approaches. It should be noted that
global or transnational democracy, as a `shared fascination' of political theorists and
international relations scholars, is a rather new field of inquiry and is still in its infancy.
(McGrew, 2002)
Cosmopolitan democracy aims to establish a functional relationship and overlap of democratic
governance on five different levels: the local, state-wide, interstate, regional and global.
(Archibugi, 2004) On the local level, the strengthening of intergovernmental and non-
governmental organization to bring together communities and local bodies is supported. On the
state level, the expansion of democracy is promoted. In a cosmopolitan view, intergovernmental
organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank need to increase their accountability and
legitimacy. Regional networks and organizations, such as the European Union (EU) are seen as
important promoters and links to foster democracy. The global dimension is by far the most
ambitious project for cosmopolitans. The aim is to establish a democratically governed world
government as the `cardinal institution', (Archibugi, 2004) in which any tensions and constraints
between the aforementioned overlapping dimensions would be solved in a `domain of global
constitutionalism' by internationalising democratic law. (Held, 1999)
Deliberative democracy, as a talk-centric approach, puts debate and discussions amongst all
members of the wider public sphere at its core. (Chambers, 2003) It aims to produce `reasonable,
well-informed opinions', in which reflexivity is thought to `create intelligent action' in a world
of overlapping communities of fate. It thus affects decision-making in public spheres, while it is
not reliant on formal institutions or voting. (Dryzek, 2006) Its principles include non-domination,
participation, public deliberation, responsive governance and the `right of all-affected to a voice
in public decisions'. Its principles offer a foundation upon which `inclusive, responsive and
responsible' global democracy can be built. (McGrew, 2002)
Today, most states are already democratic and democracy has no `global rivals' as a form of
government. (Diamond, 2003) It might be too early to claim that democracy is a universal value,
but an increasing number of people `have reason to see it as valuably'. (Sen, 1997) However,
powerful economic and structural forces have a tight grip on the realities in the international
system and are considered to `impede the prospects of transnational democracy'. (McGrew,
2002) At the same time, in the age of globalisation, notions of sovereignty and territoriality, as
powerful concepts to explain the struggle for power and interest in IR, have been re-examined
and some scholars point towards an `unbundling of territoriality'. (Ruggie, 1993) In contrast, US
hegemony reassures those who believe in the importance of thinking about power and interests
as prevailing state-centric concepts of concern in the study of IR. In spite of all of the above
issues, cosmopolitan and deliberative theories, as ambitious and radical normative approaches,
offer viable options to democratise the international system. They are of course inherently
idealistic, but to not think about and promote them would mean to accept power and interest as a
natural and inevitable quality of the international system.
People around the globe continue to form non-governmental networks to organise and mobilise
against US hegemonic power and the interests of market liberalism. Transnational democratic
concepts, especially cosmopolitan and deliberative approaches, are powerful tools for the wider
public sphere to unite and jointly democratise the international system in more inclusive and
stratified ways. Public discourses and deliberations in the form of protests and political activism
have already forced many governments and major transnational agencies (i.e. UN, WTO) to
think about and to put on the reform agenda values of transparency, accountability, participation
and legitimacy. (McGrew, 2002)
The struggle for power and interest in international politics is unlikely to disappear, but as the
civil society and other actors continue to press for reform on the global stage, there is the
possibility for power to be partly put back into the hands of the people, who would be enabled to
express their interests in democratic ways. Transnational democracy is therefore of crucial
importance in challenging the dominant paradigms of power and interest in the international
system, and needs to be firmly positioned in the study and practise of international relations as an
ongoing project.
0 Kommentare