Distinguish between is between nominal deocracy and ideal democracy
Answers
Answered by
2
Contemporary global governance is in my view a worthy ideal. As the human impact on our ecosystem continues to increase, we will need it. But discussions of democratic global governance unfortunately conform well in many ways to Krasner’s characterization of sovereignty as organized hypocrisy. The rhetoric of global governance is heavy with references to the rule of law and democratic governance, but the reality—as the United States has taken military action in Iraq, China has become more powerful and assertive, and Russia has invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea—is at best mixed. In some respects, democratic pressures remain strong, partly because the democratic ideology is the only one that appears to have universal appeal; but there are trade-offs with other objectives and as a result, counter-pressures are manifold. There will be many temptations to make global democracy only nominal—hence extending organized hypocrisy into yet another realm.
This article focuses on the difficulties that stand in the way of genuine global democratic governance, despite a Zeitgeist that emphasizes the value of democracy at every level of governance. What I fear is that the result will be a relatively empty form of global democracy—what I call “nominal democracy.” Genuine democracy is responsive to the preferences of real human beings. It requires elections that hold elected leaders accountable to publics and other arrangements that hold non-elected leaders accountable to elected ones. It also requires an effective rule of law with protection of individual rights; the existence of a vibrant civil society whose discussions are heard throughout the polity; substantial governmental transparency and procedures to ensure that leaders defend their policies in public, along with some opportunities for confidential discussions to promote compromise.2 Nominal democracy meets democratic standards on the surface and embodies the rhetoric of democracy, but lacks the content. Transnational and transgovernmental elite networks can play valuable roles in world politics,3 but they do not constitute democracy in the classic sense.
Contemporary global governance does have two crucial features that promote some semblance of democracy—features that were missing from the classical nineteenth-century balance of power system or the system that prevailed between First and Second World Wars. First, it is dominated by constitutional democracies, notably the United States and member states of the European Union, which requires democracy as a condition of accession. Constitutional democracies have procedures designed to combat special interests—what James Madison referred to as “faction”—although these procedures are not always effective.4Constitutional democracies tend to protect individual and minority rights and foster collective deliberation, although imperfectly. The existence of constitutional democracies is therefore a necessary, although not a sufficient, condition for democratic governance at the global level.
Second, both the rhetoric and the practices of global multilateral institutions are infused with democratic principles: their assemblies feature open discussion and voting, and they increasingly manifest informational transparency. Global institutions, although not procedurally democratic, also perform functions that are supportive of democracy. They help to moderate narrowly nationalistic pressures, for instance in trade policy, through reliance on the principle of generalized reciprocity and through international adjudication. Multilateral institutions also serve to protect individual and minority rights through a variety of more or less legalized institutions. Finally, depending on the willingness of governments to deliberate, they foster collective deliberation, offering forums in which proposals for solutions and “best practices” can be discussed and experimental governance arrangements tried out.5
This article focuses on the difficulties that stand in the way of genuine global democratic governance, despite a Zeitgeist that emphasizes the value of democracy at every level of governance. What I fear is that the result will be a relatively empty form of global democracy—what I call “nominal democracy.” Genuine democracy is responsive to the preferences of real human beings. It requires elections that hold elected leaders accountable to publics and other arrangements that hold non-elected leaders accountable to elected ones. It also requires an effective rule of law with protection of individual rights; the existence of a vibrant civil society whose discussions are heard throughout the polity; substantial governmental transparency and procedures to ensure that leaders defend their policies in public, along with some opportunities for confidential discussions to promote compromise.2 Nominal democracy meets democratic standards on the surface and embodies the rhetoric of democracy, but lacks the content. Transnational and transgovernmental elite networks can play valuable roles in world politics,3 but they do not constitute democracy in the classic sense.
Contemporary global governance does have two crucial features that promote some semblance of democracy—features that were missing from the classical nineteenth-century balance of power system or the system that prevailed between First and Second World Wars. First, it is dominated by constitutional democracies, notably the United States and member states of the European Union, which requires democracy as a condition of accession. Constitutional democracies have procedures designed to combat special interests—what James Madison referred to as “faction”—although these procedures are not always effective.4Constitutional democracies tend to protect individual and minority rights and foster collective deliberation, although imperfectly. The existence of constitutional democracies is therefore a necessary, although not a sufficient, condition for democratic governance at the global level.
Second, both the rhetoric and the practices of global multilateral institutions are infused with democratic principles: their assemblies feature open discussion and voting, and they increasingly manifest informational transparency. Global institutions, although not procedurally democratic, also perform functions that are supportive of democracy. They help to moderate narrowly nationalistic pressures, for instance in trade policy, through reliance on the principle of generalized reciprocity and through international adjudication. Multilateral institutions also serve to protect individual and minority rights through a variety of more or less legalized institutions. Finally, depending on the willingness of governments to deliberate, they foster collective deliberation, offering forums in which proposals for solutions and “best practices” can be discussed and experimental governance arrangements tried out.5
Similar questions