Looking at the major news stories of the day it's difficult to ignore that many of them are outside of the national sphere. The obviously transnational issues now include the recession, climate change and trade, but we can also go deeper by looking at social policy (decisions on which are constrained by international competition), local environmental regulations (pollution from the UK can cause acid rain in Norway), and similar issues right across the board. The underlying point here is that decisions taken in one place now affect people in many other countries.

If we look at the development of the nation-state and liberal democracy, it is based on administrative regions, and the fundamental principle that those who are affected by decisions have the right to make their voice heard and take part in the decision-making process. As issues have gone transnational this has been left behind to a greater and greater degree, either due to the decision being made in another region of the world, or due to transnational actors severely constraining what the decision-making process can do.

Thus far the answer to this has been a combination of intergovernmental and supranational institutions, such as the UN, WTO, EU, along with the various other international institutions and conferences. However, these institutions follow the rules of diplomacy, meaning that the important decisions are taken with little no transparency and little to no accountability. This brings with it a host of other democratic problems, such as the ability for national statesmen to say one thing nationally and do another while blaming the international institution, or the privileged position it puts executives in compared to other branches of government or opposition parties.

My question is, then, in a world where interactions, problems and solutions are all increasingly transnational, is there an emerging democratic deficit and, if so, do we require the democratisation of international institutions?

I'd have to say no, but yes. On the no, I think the fundamental problem isn't really issues of transparency, but weak international institutions in general. It's hard to convince Britain to stop creating pollution that causes Acid Rain in Norway when Norway has no means of forcing Britain to do so. The result is a whole lot of states competing against each other with no means of cooperation. Simple tragedy of the commons. I do not believe that democracy is required for strong international institutions, either. The world can come together on some occasions, it just isn't very common: WWII was a global project between the Allied powers, the world is mostly pretty much in line on North Korea (except China), and we're starting to see some increasing cooperation on Iran, even. Democracy is not required, just mutual interest and a willingness to work together and make compromises.


On the yes, I think democratization, even though it isn't necessarily required, is the best way forward to create stronger international institutions. However, there are some huge caveats in that. Democratization does not mean that we have to empower the UN to do everything right now, eliminate the security council, and give each state voting rights in accordance with its population. That strikes me as utterly insane.
On the other hand, giving the G20 some legal powers seems reasonable. The G20 are the primary stakeholders in the world and control about 80% of the economy and more than half the world population, so that's pretty much the "world" right there. These are the countries that we need to work with for a brighter future and therefore the countries we need to incorporate into an expanded setting.
If we're talking about legal power, though, different voting rights are pretty much required. "One nation, one vote" is going to piss the crap out of the US, China, and India, because all of them are going to have to contribute a lot more to the plate than Italy, and all of them are more affected, yet they have equal voting rights. Expanding voting rights to be in accordance with populations and economy size seems relatively reasonable.

It's also important to limit the influence of certain large countries. The US is NEVER going to accept entering a purely democratic union with India and China, both because of the massively different cultures and because of their immense size. I suspect Europe will be skeptical too. The answer to this would to be the cap the voting rights of India and China, and possibly some other nations (maybe Brazil and Russia). US influence is also going need to be curtailed, because winner-take-all, while necessary at the beginning, creates some really political ugly results (just see the US electoral system).

So while I don't think it is NECESSARY, I do think it is the way forward.

If we're going to eventually assign voting power to the size of a nation's population and economy, would it not make sense to follow a bicameral system?

I think you missed Vlad's point entirely - giving international organizations more teeth will only increase agitation on a local and national level, if those institutions act against the local and national interest and those interests have no recourse.

Maybe, but that's a question for future generations to solve. We have to make step 1.


Was that his point? I can see this being a problem, but I don't think the rich nations are going to accept massive declines in their influence and privilege to create a more democratic system. And that's also why I supported, in my post, increasing the democratic elements in my post. Slow and steady, plz.

By 'democratisation' I don't mean giving states equal voting rights in an institution such as the UN. And I'm not asking if it's possible/likely, but if it's desirable as an end goal.

I'll use the example of the EU (since it's where the question came from). Historically the EU has been an intergovernmental organisation, with states all having their say. One could argue the extent that different states have different powers, but the organisation itself works on either consensus of weighted (by population) voting. The proposition is that diplomacy doesn't make an organisation democratic, and thus we have a democratic deficit as people have no real say in issues that have a potentially major effect on them, and no real recourse if they don't like the decisions.

The debate is that the organisation should therefore be democratised -- not to the state level, but to the individual level. There is an element of this with the European Parliament; but should it have more powers? Should the President be directly elected? Should there be votes on issues? And so forth. This is what I mean by democratisation.

Arcturus is correct that the point is to see this as an of increasing importance as issues move from the national to the transnational sphere.

Basically what I got from Vlad's post was that international organizations are rarely if ever, and certainly not to the same degree as most national governments, responsible to the people they are affecting. This means that foreign nations and international organizations can take actions that directly impact people who have no input in the decision making process, leading to a decline in democratic accountability as applied to the global stage. The fact that globalization is increasing the degree to which these activities are taking place means that there is an increasing amount of influence centered in organizations that don't have the kind of democratic check most people, especially in the West, are used to having on their ruling bodies and the result is a net decrease in the comparative control wielded by democratic institutions and democracy as a whole.

Delta has explained my position far better than I apparently did. Feel free to work off of that.

Yes, organizations at the international level should be. Eventually. Right now? No thanks. Democracy in America is currently getting its head shoved into car door and smashed repeatedly. I do not want to replicate this at the international level with an extremely heterogeneous set of interests and values. More democratic=/=better results

Of course, when angry people stop you from achieving any results at all...

They are ALREADY stopping us from achieving any results at all, AND they have voting rights. I am not going to hand the keys to the whole world over to a bunch of retards so they feel slightly happier while they drive the system into the ground even faster.

I'm not sure that we're talking about the same angry people.

Which angry people are you talking about?

I am not too worried about the angry people in Africa. They can't really do !@#$.

Though I sort of doubt they'll amount to much, nationalists in Europe have received a boost from the development of the EU as a transnational institution, have they not? A truly serious international institution is only going to agitate nationalist feelings - particularly in the United States. They're not necessarily the kind of people you think are already screwing things up, but I'm not sure who you have pegged as doing that currently.

Sorry. No.

If it becomes a yes, OP. I'll be safely dead.

The question in my head: Is democracy really the best choice for the international community, given so much hyper pluralism, and if not, what other form of decision making and governance is preferable? Sure, perhaps democratic traditions, but maybe the international community needs a strong central leader over equal branches (at least a picture of democracy in the US)

I'm already quite aware of this.
However, those nationalist feelings are going to be agitated REGARDLESS of the democratic levels of international institutions. In fact, the more democratic they are, the LESS likely Americans are going to be support them. You really think that Americans are going to be happy if they can elect a world President when they get the same vote as someone in China?

That would assume that Americans would give up thier nationhood, and many of the basis's that founded it.

Although it would be quite unheard of, I think that enough of America could be coerced into loosing at least some of their national sovereignty, through promises of greater education, more government subsidies, etc. to be provided by the international community.

Sorry. No.

Not without one hell of a fight.

I certainly hope that Americans are willing to part with some national autonomy. We will not be the dominant superpower forever. Our interest is in creating durable and robust transnational institutions just for that reason, but with the world increasingly globalized, we need more global institutions to manage what our domestic institutions are no longer capable of doing. Trying to dissolve a bank like Citigroup, which has more than half of its revenues coming from overseas, is no longer just a national job.

Or we can go isolationist, which would be stupid.

See, I hope so too. However, the general public is more easily swayed than you or I.

I'm not saying this will happen, just that I think there is a possibility. Perhaps in the future, but I dread the day.




Better yet, non-interventionist.

Interesting take. So you would violate our founding documents in order to to capitulate to another's wishes? There is anothers thing, we could teach the rest of the world how it's done.

And no, some of us Americans are not willing to part with Nation Autonomy. If you wish to do so, then that is your choice.



Oh, there is going to be a bit of a ruckus if it is attempted.

How would we be violate our founding documents by giving up some of our autonomy, swallowing some of our pride, all to forge a transnational institution? It's not like we are going to be invaded by Britain (or Russia or China, in a more realistic and contemporary example). If we are to be a nation with any potential and political capital in the future, we need to do this.

The founding fathers did find this country on the radical ideals of the Enlightenment, and not on telling the world to "GTFO, this is not your world", and if they were to see us move forward into a global age as a part of a transnational institution, they would be delighted. You have taken the word "independence" a little too literally.

$%&@ yes.

But really the answer is a bit more complicated than that. The Constitution is just a document, and while it has been rather successful it is NOT perfect.

If we are discussing democratisation we don't necessarily mean increasing the amount of national autonomy that we have lost. We aren't talking about building a new world government.

Countries have already given up some of their national autonomy by entering into the modern world where the actions of other nations have a significant effect on your own. The answer to this has been the UN, the WTO, the EU, and so on, that all to a greater or lesser degree take collective action over national autonomy.

Of course, America has far more control over these collective agreements than most other nations by virtue of their power, but a) that won't always be the care and b) let's try not to be too American-centric.

That's BS. There's no way the UN would ever allow the US to receive more money than we give. Besides, liberals in the US support transnational institutions for the sake of ethics and foreign policy, not as a means of public policy.

This seems to be a problem of mankind's technological development out pacing its social development. The world is increasingly becoming more interconnected as interaction with others around the globe becomes easier due to advances in transportation and communication, and so the rules we once followed are gradually becoming obsolete.

This is a process that began millennia ago, when the community was the tribe. You knew your allies by name, and anyone who lived outside your close-knit circle was a stranger and potential enemy. The concept of giving your life for a person hundreds of miles away who you had never personally met was unthinkable. As technology facilitated greater interaction though, people were able to intermingle with and thereby identify with others outside their tribal groups, and the sharing of cultures created greater homogeneity. The concept of the community therefore evolved to include people who lived in the same village, and then those in the same city, and eventually those who lived in the same nation. Every step of the way there were battles between the old ways of thinking and the new, but eventually the traditional approaches simply became impractical to continue adhering to, and humanity moved on. If we continue to make technological advancements into the foreseeable future then it becomes almost inevitable that this process will continue.

While at this point the idea of the global community is foreign to most or us, and only a few people really believe in it, the concept will only grow as technology breaks down our national distinctions and makes it easier for us to identify with one another. It has already begun with the relatively recent development of intra-continental identities such as the pan-African and pan-European movements. Give it time, and the old ways of nationalism and patriotism will also eventually become impractical, as it will become exceedingly difficult for us to vilify people who we are so closely connected to and share so much in common with.

When will this happen? I don't know. But when it does, that will be the point at which democratization of international institutions occurs, if not well before.