Veronika Janyrova
"A world parliament that allows all members of the world community - and that is all human beings - to be involved in decisions of global significance."
Andreas Bummel, co-founder and coordinator of the UNPA
The impact of globalization on our democracies can hardly be underestimated. It allows more and more spheres of power to emerge away from the nation state. Political scientists are witnessing a rapid increase in international organizations and networks that operate globally and exert significant political power beyond the nation state. But: is that bad, or maybe even desirable?
Political scientist Jan Aart Scholte of the University of Warwick speaks in this connection of "countless formal measures, informal norms and all-embracing discourses for the regulation of global relations [...] which are implemented by complex networks". These networks consist of nation states, international organizations, global institutions, sub-state agencies and non-state actors such as NGOs or corporations.
Pioneering policy decisions are increasingly being made within transnational bodies and sometimes even without the approval of national parliaments, or even contrary to national regulations.
Among the best known and most powerful are the G20, an "informal discussion platform" of the most developed 20 industrialized countries, representing a total of 85 percent of global economic output and two-thirds of the world's population. The European Union, on the other hand, represents 23 percent of global economic output and seven percent of the world's population. In the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, in turn, 189 member states represent almost the whole world, as well as the World Trade Organization (90 percent world population, 97 percent global economic output). Pioneering policy decisions are increasingly being made within these transnational bodies, and sometimes without the approval of national parliaments, or even at odds with national (social, economic, health) regulations. Although these decisions can sometimes interfere deeply with national affairs, most nation states generally have no way of influencing them, let alone controlling them. This outsources national sovereignty in many ways and undermines the democratic principle of self-determination.
Much power, no legitimacy
International organizations largely reflect the prevailing power relations and interests of their (dominant) members. This is particularly clear and fatal, for example, in the veto of the UN Security Council, which means that Russia, the US and China are blocking each other, thus preventing both the resolution of international conflicts and a reform of the United Nations itself. Last but not least, the ability of the UN to act simply depends on the membership fees of its (strongest) members. The criticism of international organizations is as diverse as it is passionate. But above all one thing is of interest here: their democratic legitimacy. Although this is often demanded and praised, but rarely seriously implemented. "In many cases, international organizations are responding to criticism by changing their procedures, in particular by opening up to NGOs and increasing the transparency of their work. Whether this can be seen as an expression of an incipient democratization, however, remains to be seen ", states the policy professor Michael Zürn of the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.
Professor Zürn has been researching international organizations for years and observes their increasing politicization. More and more people are awaiting answers and solutions to the problems of our time, especially on a global level: "Surveys show that while there is increasing criticism of international organizations such as the EU and the United Nations, while at the same time becoming more and more important," Zürn says ,
World government & global democracy
For some years now, this political globalization has also fueled the academic discourse on how our democracies can catch up with the volatile spheres of power. Is it necessary to globalize democracy in order to democratize globalization? "Not quite" says Jürgen Neyer, Professor of International Politics at the European University Viadrina and author of the book "Global Democracy". "It is certainly true that the political structures of democracy today have to outgrow the individual nation state. However, that does not mean the democratic world state. "Rather, according to Professor Neyer, one must strive for an institutionally designed inclusive discourse between democratic societies.
Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences, also warns of a world government. Because this could easily turn into a "global tyranny" or find itself as an instrument in the hands of some powerful governments.
Political scientist Jan Aart Scholte of the University of Warwick identifies two dominant theories for developing a global democracy: one of them is multilateralism. It assumes that global democracy can best be developed through multilateral cooperation between democratic nation-states. The second approach is cosmopolitanism. This aims to raise the democratic institutions of the (western) national state (bourgeoisie, parliament, government, etc.) to a global level, or to replicate them there.
The Democratic World Parliament
However, the discourse on global democracy does not take place only in academic spheres. The initiative "Democracy without borders" (formerly: Committee for a Democratic UN), around 1.500 MPs and more than 250 NGOs around the world have joined. And she (according to her own statements) enjoys the support of the European Parliament, the Pan-African Parliament and the Latin American Parliament.
Since 2003, the initiative has been working for a world parliament constituted as a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). "A world parliament that allows all members of the world community - and that is all human beings - to be involved in decisions of global significance," says Andreas Bummel, co-founder and coordinator of the UNPA campaign. The starting point is the realization that today's national parliaments are simply not up to many challenges. For Andreas Bummel and his comrade-in-arms Jo Leinen, a world parliament could be built in stages: initially, the states could choose whether their UNPA members come from national or regional parliaments or are directly elected. The UNPA would initially act as an advisory body. With an increase in their democratic legitimacy, their rights and competences would gradually be developed. In the long term, the assembly could become a true world parliament.
World Government & Global Democracy
As utopian as the idea of a global democracy may sound today, this vision is so old. One of the most prominent representatives of a "world federalism" is Immanuel Kant, who coquetted in his 1795 published book "To eternal peace" with the idea of a world republic. In it, free states would become a "republic of republics." However, he warned vehemently against the dissolution of the individual republics themselves, as this would pave the way for a "soulless despotism".
Photo / Video: Shutterstock.
