Global Democratic Deficit Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The phrase “democratic deficit” has been most frequently used in reference to the European Union, but it is applicable to any supranational organization to which states belong but of which their citizens do not have direct democratic control. International institutions raise at least two issues relating to democracy: (1) representation and accountability to individuals that live within states that are part of a supranational organization, and (2) the democratic equality of representation among state members themselves. The global democratic deficit usually refers to the first of these two concerns.

The central concern is that because of supranational rules and decisions, citizens of a democratic country are occasionally subject to domestic policies that they have not, or would not, put in place through their own domestic democratic processes. On such occasions, citizens may feel that they have been overruled by a supranational organization to which they have no direct recourse. There are at least three broad responses to this problem. Proponents of cosmopolitan democracy seek to extend the principles of democracy to the global level by shifting the foundation of global governance from sovereign territorial states and their executives to the political autonomy of individuals and global society. Some skeptics of cosmopolitan democracy agree with the basic concern about a global democratic deficit but propose a different set of institutional reforms. Supranational delegated democracy does have its defenders.

The European Union, although not a perfectly democratic institution, provides an example of a supranational organization with a directly elected parliament. Some cosmopolitan democrats propose the establishment of a global parliament or people’s assembly. The concept is not new, and in fact a similar idea was proposed and rejected when the League of Nations was formed. Still, the United Nations (UN) remains governed by diplomats who are appointed by state executives, and there are no direct institutional links between the people of the world and the UN, which is the largest global governance institution. A movement to increase citizen electoral participation within and outside the UN has grown, and there have been numerous proposals for doing so.

In addition to the creation of an institutional assembly for the people, global conferences that include the participation of citizens, global civil society, and nongovernmental organizations may provide another avenue for strengthening global democracy. Citizen participation in global governance through conferences and other means of global or “new” diplomacy have been credited with significantly influencing the creation of the International Criminal Court and the establishment of an international convention prohibiting the use of landmines.

In addition to calls for increasing direct citizen participation in global institutions, pressures for improving nonelectoral accountability, such as transparency, and linkages to nonstate actors, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and global civil society organizations, have intensified. Increasing avenues of participation for NGOs and civil society organizations as representatives of “the people” has the potential to increase accountability of global institutions but would not create global democracy in the way that cosmopolitans seek. Still, institutional reforms improving transparency and creating closer working conditions between global nonstate actors and international organizations have been the most common and visible effects of the global movement to reduce the democratic deficit.

Most scholars agree that the perceived legitimacy of international decision making is important to its public acceptance and the continuation of multilateralism. However, the goal of democratizing global governance is not universally championed. All democratic systems of government involve some delegation, particularly when it would not be practical or optimal for decisions to be subject to popular vote. For example, when decision making is highly technical or best insulated from majority opinion in order to protect a minority, liberal democracies often decide to delegate decision making to a body that is not directly accountable to majority opinion. Many international institutions might be viewed in this way. Even if individuals do not have the opportunity to vote for or against individuals with decision-making power in international institutions, they do have the opportunity to influence the process through their domestic governments, which in turn have a voice in the affairs of the international institutions of which they are a part. In this way, multilateral institutions are democratic, if only indirectly.

Bibliography:

Archibugi, Daniele. “Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review.” European Journal of International Relations 10, no. 3 (2004): 437–473. Dahl, Robert A. 1999.
“Can International Organizations Be Democratic?” In Democracy’s Edges, edited by I. Shapiro and C. Hacker-Cordon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Falk, Richard, and Andrew Strauss. “Toward Global Parliament.” Foreign Affairs 80, no. 1 (2001): 212–220.
Held, David. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
Moravcsik, A. “Is There a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis.” Government and Opposition 39, no. 2 (2004): 336–363.

This example Global Democratic Deficit Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.