The answer to this question seems to be very simple. Global governance is bound to be undemocratic because, according to Dahrendorf, Internationalisation “almost invariably means a loss of democracy”1. Why and if this is the case will be examined in this essay. Governance, in contrast to government2, “refers to the process of making collective decisions, [...] in international relations, for example, no world government exists to resolve problems but many issues are resolved by negotiation”3. After a discussion about democracy in this context, the focus will be laid on different global intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), followed by a future outlook over possible future alternative possibilities and restraints. It will be shown that international democratic decision making is not likely to happen.
Before entering the discussion, it is necessary to define what the term ´democracy` refers to. Normally it is used in a national context, and even within this context there exist various forms in parallel in neighbouring nations, whose political styles span from governmental to federal, and from one party to multiple party systems. Regarding the international order, which can be seen as a society of states, definition becomes more difficult. A basic definition is offered by the MSN Encarta as follows: “A political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish”4; but this refers merely to the ´people` and to a permanent institutional idea that does catch the real process. The definition of a “democratic governmental system [which describes] a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making”5 might suit here better, although it uses the term government instead of governance. Hence a decision in international terms has to be supported by the majority to be called democratic. Yet it is not clear what kind of majority this could be. Is it the majority of states? This implies that each state would have one voice without special rights unlike a veto. However, is this really democratic? This would favour small (in size and population), generally powerless and poor states and put large, populous, generally rich and influential countries at a disadvantage.
Table of Contents
1. Is global governance bound to be undemocratic?
Objectives & Topics
This essay explores the inherent tension between global governance and democratic principles, specifically addressing the research question of whether international decision-making processes are destined to remain undemocratic due to the structure of the current state system.
- The conceptual distinction between government and global governance.
- Challenges of defining democracy within an international society of states.
- Evaluation of democratic deficit in major IGOs like the UN, WTO, and WHO.
- Analysis of power dynamics, voting mechanisms, and state sovereignty.
- Examination of the realism and constraints regarding future democratic global reform.
Excerpt from the Book
The inherent problem of democratic decision-making in the United Nations
The United Nations rely on the principle of ´one state one vote` in its General Assembly and although it “had been set up as a world parliament”, it does not play a decisive role. The great powers ensured their status by the stronger position of the Security Council (UNSC) as permanent members with the right to veto decisions. Although the UN was not created as a government, the UNSC is able to make decisions and has the power to get them through because if the most powerful nations agree on an issue there is no state who would oppose them.
The UN Charter legitimises them to impose economic sanctions, arms embargo or even use collective military actions to see that its decisions are carried out. Yet even this small council, with only 15 states is not constituted in a democratic way due to the five permanent members’ right to veto. Even if such a small circle want to overrule only one permanent member this is not possible. Furthermore, there is no prospect that this might change in the future. This right is the exclusive assurance for selected elite nations that nothing can happen against their interests, that the council is not able to make any decision to their disadvantage.
Summary of Chapters
1. Is global governance bound to be undemocratic?: This chapter introduces the core thesis that global governance structures lack inherent democratic legitimacy and examines the tension between international cooperation and the protection of state sovereignty.
Keywords
Global governance, Democracy, International Relations, United Nations, World Trade Organization, Sovereignty, Majority decision-making, Power relations, Intergovernmental organisations, Democratisation, Political constraints, State system, Veto power, World parliament.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic essay?
The essay investigates whether global governance structures are inherently undemocratic, analyzing the structural and practical barriers to implementing democratic decision-making at the international level.
Which central themes are explored?
The work examines the definition of democracy in global politics, the power dynamics within Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), and the conflict between state sovereignty and international collective decision-making.
What is the primary research question?
The research seeks to answer if global governance is bound to be undemocratic and why international democratic decision-making remains unlikely to be achieved.
Which scientific method is utilized?
The author employs a qualitative analysis of international relations theory, reviewing the structural frameworks of major institutions like the UN, WTO, and WHO to assess their democratic legitimacy.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body focuses on the definition of democracy in international contexts, the voting mechanisms of major IGOs, the influence of great powers versus smaller states, and the realism of proposed reforms for global democratisation.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Global Governance, Democracy, International Relations, United Nations, World Trade Organization, Sovereignty, and Power Relations.
How does the author analyze the role of the UN Security Council?
The author argues that the UNSC is inherently undemocratic due to the veto power of permanent members, which allows elite nations to ensure that no collective decisions are made against their specific national interests.
Why does the author conclude that democratic reform is unrealistic?
The author concludes that reforms are hindered by states' reluctance to surrender sovereignty, the lack of a clear vision for citizen participation, and the logistical challenges of managing global-scale democratic institutions.
- Quote paper
- Peter Tilman Schuessler (Author), 2002, Is global governance bound to be undemocratic?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/8911