From the looks of things, democracy is on the move once again. Elections have been successfully held in Iraq, the Palestinian Territories and the Ukraine. People power is making itself heard in Lebanon as well. It's a heady time for citizens who, perhaps for the first time in their lives, are able to have a voice in their own futures.
However, despite these bright spots, there are still places where democracy is elusive. It's interesting that when we talk about democratization, the tendency is to think in terms of a nation. But what about democracy across nations, or democratization of the planet? Democracy at the global level is increasingly important in the age of globalization, where even the domestic policies of a nation can cause global side effects.
As much attention as the democratization of nations gets, we have a long way to go before we achieve global democracy. The powerful nations of the developed North are more or less free to implement policies as they wish, even though those nations account for roughly one-fifth of the world's population. They may work through existing international bodies, but as we'll see, that does not guarantee a democratically fair outcome.
For example: Why does the United Kingdom have much greater influence on the world stage than Bangladesh, although Bangladesh has more than twice the UK's population? (All population figures are approximations based on the U.N. Population Information Network's 2002 statistics at www.un.org/popin/.)
Or why does the U.S., with under 5% of the world's population, get its way without requesting the approval of a majority of the world's 6.3 billion people? At times, U.S. behavior is similar to how the elite hold on to power in repressive regimes: The rich and powerful minority uses pressure, intimidation and occasionally violence to keep its position of privilege and to look out for its own interests, and never mind how other nations may be affected.
In a democracy, whether it be national or global, aren't decisions supposed to be based on the wishes of its citizens -- where every citizen has one vote, regardless of race, class, religion and economic status -- and not on the wishes of the richest and strongest, which is how global decision-making tends to be done today? What's needed are global institutions whose responsibility it is to represent all the world's peoples, to ensure that democratic principles are followed, and to make laws, to which all nations are bound, based on the interests of human beings and not national governments.
What sort of global institutions exist today? Probably the best-known democratic governing body is the United Nations General Assembly. It has representatives from all 191 U.N. member nations, where each nation has one representative, and therefore one vote. So all nations are represented, although not in relation to their populations. For example, Iceland (population: 300,000) has as much voting power as China (population: 1.3 billion).
The General Assembly also doesn't have any teeth; it votes on non-binding recommendations. Nations are not obligated, and cannot be forced, to follow the recommendations that are passed.
In contrast to the General Assembly, the U.N. Security Council passes binding resolutions. It can invoke sanctions and authorize the use of force against member nations who do not abide by the resolutions. The Security Council consists of 5 permanent members (United States, United Kingdom, China, Russia and France) and 10 non-permanent members who are elected for two-year terms. Only the full-time members have a veto right, which means that even if the other 14 members vote for a resolution, a single permanent member can block the resolution's passage with its veto. Even attempting to reform the Security Council constitution, which would be a requirement for correcting the Council's current imbalance of power, could be vetoed by any permanent member.
That's not exactly my idea of a democratic body. The five full-time members, which essentially represent the victors of World War II, have power far beyond what they would have in a democratic system. (Excluding China, the four remaining permanent members represent about 560 million people, or less than nine percent of the world's population.)
Unfortunately, the Security Council is not the exception to the rule; other international organizations are equally undemocratic. And it's surprising how little one hears about this undemocratic state of affairs. As well as the Security Council, other examples include the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. All were essentially founded by nations in the developed North, with inherent advantages for the North, and with safeguards built into their constitutions to protect those inherent advantages. None of these bodies can really be considered to be democratic, pledging to carry out the wishes of the world citizenry based on one person, one vote.
What could a true global democracy look like? How would global institutions differ from the ones we have today? In his book Manifesto for a New World Order (published in Britain as The Age of Consent), George Monbiot identifies the imbalances of power in existing global institutions. In his opinion, of the organizations mentioned, only the General Assembly can be reformed; the others should be replaced.
Monbiot also describes his vision of what a global democracy might look like. It is based on a World Parliament, elected by every adult on the planet. This body would have 600 members, each representing 10 million people. (To simplify the example, he uses easy round numbers.)
The Parliament would pass laws on issues concerning humankind; issues that rise above national interests and politics, such as climate change, human rights, nuclear proliferation and international terrorism.
China and India would benefit most from a World Parliament, and rightly so: those two nations represent 20% and 15% of the world's population, respectively. (Recall that the third most populous nation, the U.S., has less than 5%.) Predictably, some of those in power today will not be sympathetic to the idea of global democracy; they have their wealth and power and privilege to lose. They have little to gain, except perhaps a clear conscience. Monbiot writes:
If you respond with horror to the idea of a world parliament, as many do, I would invite you to examine your reaction carefully. Is it because you believe that such a body might become remote and excessively powerful? Or is it really because you cannot bear the idea that a resident of Brussels would have no greater voice in world affairs than a resident of Kinshasa? ... That the people of Mexico would, collectively, become two and a half times as powerful as the people of Spain, while the Indians would cast seventeen times as many votes as the inhabitants of the United Kingdom? That, in other words, the flow of power established when a few nations ruled the world would be reversed? Are you afraid that this parliament might threaten democracy, or are you really afraid that it would actuate it?
One cannot claim to be for democracy in one instance, and against it in another. We cannot enthusiastically support democracy within a nation, but remain silent when the topic is global democracy. Therefore those of us in the developed North, representing roughly 20% of the world's population while holding 80% of its wealth, need to ask ourselves: Do we truly believe in justice and democracy for all? Or do we believe in it only when it suits us?
