Can the European Union help realise a Cosmopolitan Democracy?

Throughout the last century, liberal democracies have become the prevailing form of national government, and a key concept of modern western society. The basic premise of liberal democracy is not only to have rule of the people by the people, but elected representatives that help make decisions for the nation. Progress comes with history, and it is said that public accountability is so imperative in a liberal democracy, that no two democracies have ever gone to war. Indeed, it is since the end of the Second World War that liberal democracies have flourished, and they have happened in tandem with an increasing sense of globalization. During this period transnational groups covering politics, defence and economics have emerged, such as the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). With them, questions over the democratic accountability of liberal democracies have arisen as these institutions become ever more powerful. The idea of liberal democracy nonetheless remains strong, even if relevant democratic checks need to be applied. The more pertinent question now turns to the ability of nation-states to realise the requirements of liberal democracy within their borders.

The currently understood requirements are that they should be self-contained and self-determining. The people should be a distinct entity, which a nation-state marks by its territory, and they should have effective government, in order to run their affairs. The effects of globalization are now as such, that nations have to account for considerations that impact upon them, that they can not exclusively control themselves. Examples of this could include the effects of climate change, trade subsidies or intellectual property rights, or perhaps the building of nuclear facilities close to another nations territory. The growing inter-dependence of nations, has therefore removed some of the linkages of democratic accountability between the citizen and the state. The state is also unable to control cross-border conglomerates, which are capable of having huge effects upon its citizens. Decision-making is increasingly moving to a level beyond the state, but to do so undermines state sovereignty, which poses questions about where the democratic settlement should lie.

Today as it currently exists, the democracies of the world are bounded within a bordered polity; the nation state. All states are legally equal under the Westphalian model, which is the predominant theory understood in international relations, and international law. The state’s sovereignty, based on autonomy and territory has become increasingly undermined, and the international environment has consistently broken this model . we have the example of weak states, that are incapable of state responsibility within an international community, such as Afghanistan or Somalia. These states, which are unable to facilitate democracy and autonomy within their own territory, require international assistance. There is however further disjunctures outwith conflict that challenge the independence of the nation-state. Globalization can reduce the ability of states, and of their citizens to dictate their own matters, due to forces outwith their individual and collective mastery.

One view of globalization, that can be attributed to Immanuel Kant centuries ago, is that we are now ‘unavoidably side by side’. It is certainly truer now, than then, that what occurs in one place, can have ramifications around the globe. The speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness means that collective action is necessary, as no one nation can act alone without consequence. This is shown in issues such as global climate change, where international action is required, to challenge the vested interests of individual state actors. Some however would argue that this erosion of state sovereignty is an attack on the security of countries, just as a military attack would be. It is not an attack though for nations to willingly enter into collective reasoning. The effects of globalization may well challenge the Westphalian notion of state sovereignty, but to what extent will depend on the reach of global governance.

There is no world government, and no one body that acts to strip nation-states of their sovereignty, but global governance in effect does just that. As states become more interconnected, interests are articulated and decisions made by a transnational political process. Anthony McGrew calls the result of this process, the ‘disaggregated state’. This is where the image of a unitary state, is displaced by that of one that acts in partnership with international agencies NGOs, and other international actors. International agencies can thus have considerable influence on global policy, such as the big three credit-rating agencies that determine the credit status of nation-states. This external influence clearly impacts on the political authority of the democratically elected governments, and necessitates them to participate within international norms. The credit-rating agencies, are but just one international body that shapes global governance. We also must consider a range of other global institutions, and their effects on the democratic mandate of the nation-state.

The hyperglobalist view hypothesizes that national borders are becoming increasingly meaningless as multilateral institutions further exert their influence. Global institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WTO help promote transnational trade and economic integration. Though these institutions concede the central role of states in geopolitics, it does not alter the influence bodies such as the IMF will exert. Rarely too, do citizens of any states get any say in the membership of such bodies. Switzerland is thus far the only state to put the membership of the Bretton Woods institutions to a binding vote. The Swiss people did vote to accept membership of these bodies, but what if they had taken the democratic decision to reject membership? It would not have altered the external influence such institutions continue to exert on their nation-state.

The challenges of globalization on democracy are numerous, but one of the more notable effects has been that of global communication. As technology advanced, so has the ease of communication among different cultural groups across the world. The ideology of democracy has therefore spread to places where it did not previously exist, along with matters such as the debate of universal human rights. A study by the University of Washington found that social media played a central role in shaping debates prior to the Arab Spring, and helped raised expectations for the success of the political uprising. This was clearly beyond state control, and is an example of external influences undermining state sovereignty, and alternately promoting democratic ideals. Peculiarly, if we look at the early years of this century, globalization may also have had the effect of dramatizing the differences between peoples around the world . The conflicts in the Middle East and terrorism across the world may suggest that the technology that was supposed to bring people closer together, has instead helped highlight what differences exist between cultures.

David Held in his book, ‘Models of Democracy’, theorizes that the loss of political authority from democratic nation-states due to globalization can be determined. This is achieved by assessing the impact of ‘disjunctures’ caused by globalization which he breaks down into four areas; the world economy, international organisations, international law, and the global political agenda. Taking the world economy as an illustration, it is clear that states are increasingly unable to withstand the accumulated economic power of multinational corporations, financial markets and international trade. Mexico for example, has committed itself to an export-orientated development, which is endorsed by the IMF and World Bank. A result of this development policy is that its own domestically grown produce cannot rival the cheaper imports that result, and its farmers are unable to compete. These impacts of globalization undermine the independence of the nation-state, and thereby challenge democracy at that level too. As the citizen’s democratic representatives power is reduced, due to problems outwith their control, as is their ability to represent the affairs of those that voted them into office.

There are however arguments that run counter to the hyperglobalist theories outlined thus far — that though the role of the state may be changing, it’s sovereignty is not. It can be claimed that globalization is merely a product of rearranging purposes, rather than the state being undermined to any great significance. The state’s role is certainly changing, but the state also retains the legitimacy and authority to speak on global issues. Free trade which is a product of increased globalization, is claimed to prove the pre-eminence of states, as it does not remove the need for action by states, but underpins it. Any rules reached by agreement at a global level, can only be enforced by the states which hold domestic power. These arguments however are predicated on the assumption that the Westphalian model of state sovereignty is still absolute. This argument is however undermined by the impact of a global bodies and non-state actors. If we accept then that globalization is undermining democracy at the nation-state level, we will then need to find a solution to this problem.

Held introduces his answer to the challenges facing democracy in a globalized world, by stating that ‘we live today at a fundamental point of transition’. He sees a weakening of democracy and accountability at state level, and a danger of democratic ideals being sidelined by the domination of global market forces. His answer to this is ‘an entrenchment of democratic autonomy on a cosmopolitan basis’. Held argues that the national interests of dominant states often prevail over global matters of concern. One of many examples of this would be in the area of climate change; in 1992 the USA refused to become a signatory to the bio-diversity protocol agreed in Rio de Janeiro. This proves the requirement for a more binding legal framework to tie states to decisions taken in the global interest. How democratic such institutions would be requires even further thought, but central to Held’s model of cosmopolitan democracy is the development of regional and global institutions.

It is not globalization that undermines democracy, but the endeavor to achieve it simply within territorially determined boundaries. The answer to this is democratic regional and global institutions, that do not replace, but rather, augment national democracy. Within a transnational system, a broader view of democracy could lead to a more just and humanitarian world. Held suggests this is due to citizenship becoming based upon shared values and principles, rather than merely defined by a territorial community. We can see this in many bodies that have formed on an international footing. UNICEF, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Save The Children and the World Health Organisation (WHO) share universal principles, largely absent from national political groups. Many such bodies do however fall under the auspices of the United Nations, but Held suggests we take this further. He proposes a global parliament, that is accountable and which bridges the democratic deficit that exists within existing structures. A global parliament alone however, is insufficient — much further multilevel governance would be required to efficiently deliver a cosmopolitan democracy.

A multi-layered approach to democratic governance, has to see democratic practices both stretched globally via a network of agencies and assemblies, but also embedded within local communities. To achieve this, we could have a system of general referenda, regional parliaments and a global democratic assembly. This approach sees a more effective UN Security Council, supported by stronger international law and more effective international bodies in the short term. In the longer term all global bodies would be accountable to the global assembly, as well as a consolidation of all the world’s military. John Dryzek lauded this vision as compelling, notably for the eventual global demilitarization that could result, and the social-democratic polity that it aims to produce. On a regional basis the same problems still remain though, as demarcating boundaries at local, sub-national and regional levels will always be disputed. Held however remains confident that appropriate jurisdiction will be better achieved by democratic cross-border institutions. Otherwise they will be resolved by the dominant nation-states and their geopolitical interests, and transnational market-based organisations. Held’s views are certainly optimistic, even desirable, but the attainment of a border-less cosmopolitan world currently seem a distant and unfeasible vision.

The age of globalization has led to important issues often being outwith a nation-state’s control, but whether democracy can be transferred into a transnational society is an open question. For this to occur there would have to be an excessive reliance on the global institutions, which are open to manipulation and difficult to democratize. There has been thinly democratic piggybacking at best, and that there is little sign that democracy has followed this path. The IMF and the WTO are used as examples of this, where there is little evidence of democracy, but rather an entrenchment of the authority of the markets. A cosmopolitan democracy requires democratic values both within, and across communities, as well as democratic binding mechanisms. However the defining feature of the international system for the past few hundred years has been precisely its lack of government’. We should maybe then focus on the option of democratizing international politics via social movements and activism, rather than the, admittedly desirable model offered by Held.

Critics of such visions as cosmopolitan democracy, would argue that such concepts are a fanciful utopia, and unfeasible. Without shared national identities, language or culture, democracy could fail due to a lack of public commitment to common goals. Some object to the notion of a world government of any sort, as this could only be achieved by nullifying cultural differences, within an imperial project. Other more practical problems, such as the lack of a shared language to engage in democratic debate remain. Some will continue to insist that the only forum in which genuine democracy occurs is within national boundaries. This assertion that national democracy is the only genuine form appears simplistic, as it is possible to conceive that democracy could also be achieved by democratizing the international institutions. This however would also require strengthening international law and the United Nations system, as well as further democratizing regional bodies.

The prime example of a democratic regional body today is the European Union, even though many do still query the true extent of it’s democratic accountability. But how can we envision the democratic legitimation of decisions beyond the schema of nation-state? Within a global setting, we lack the solidarity to sustain a strong democracy, so instead we focus on the regional bodies, where solidarity can be created. The European states of the nineteenth century were of course, in many cases, much different to those that exist today, but an artificial form of ‘solidarity amongst strangers’ has been achieved. There is therefore no reason to believe that a similar solidarity could not be achieved between, for example, the Swedes and Portuguese. The hurdles are high, but the focus must initially be on regions that have a shared history and common political culture such as Europe. A global cosmopolitan democracy is without doubt a long term project that requires overcoming social division throughout the world.

It is clear that globalization is beginning to, and will continue to undermine state sovereignty, and therefore the notion of true representative democracy. The growth of international bodies has raised the issue of a democratic deficit, since decisions are now made outwith nation-states, that have a far-reaching impact on their citizens. The global bodies that have been created thus far, such as the UN have shown little sign of democratic accountability and since globalization cannot be halted, an answer is required. The vision of a cosmopolitan democracy is desirable in the long term, but remains in the short term an unfeasible proposition. The nation-state will continue, as far as we can see, to be the predominant decision making, and enforcing bodies within the world.

However, examples of the possibilities of cosmopolitan democracy which have been explored, and have been realized at a regional level can be built upon. Global bodies such as the UN, and regional ones such as the EU are a first step towards further global governance, and it is here where real democracy needs to be installed. Globalization truly does mean that democracy is moving beyond the level of the nation-state, and this is one of many reasons why I will vote to Remain within the European Union. In search of the the development of a cosmopolitan society, that I hope for, though know will not be realised within my lifetime.