A few days ago I had the opportunity to give a speech about the need for democracy at global level and about what we, as individuals, can do.
I post it here because it summarizes well what is explained in several previous posts:
Utopia is a great place to go.
Literally, coming from ancient Greek (yes, this too) “u-topia” means non-place. So, in the common understanding, it means a non-existing place, somewhere where it would be absurd to go!
But what if you just added a little “yet”? A place non-existing “yet”? All changes!
All the great leaders headed to utopia, they depicted it in vivid colours, showed the way or -even better- opened the way.
They explained it clearly: this place doesn’t exist yet. That’s why we are going to create it. No tricks, the plain truth.
People bought their vision and made it possible.
I’m thinking of Mahatma Gandhi, of Martin Luther King, of Nelson Mandela.
They didn’t pretend to be realistic, they used words like “vision” or “dream” and they created what previously was just utopia. Because nothing would change or come to existence if it were not created in the imagination first.
I looked on the web for a map of Utopia. Surprisingly enough, I found many … and from different ages!
And I found this quote by Oscar Wilde:
“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.”
Speaking of “real” maps, I came across the beautiful “Map of Humanity” by James Turner.
On it, the island of Utopia lays just halfway between the continents of Wisdom and Reason in the Oceanus Procellarum.
I realized that he was making an interesting point here: to reach Utopia you have to cross the ocean of storms. Well, not exactly a stroll in the park!
So, the reward of reaching Utopia is for the brave ones, the determinate ones, the resilient ones. As Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Well, we are not Gandhi…
The good news is: when the way is open, when the first man or woman reaches Utopia – be him a leader, an explorer, a scientist, a philosopher- Utopia is not Utopia anymore, it becomes a real place, open to all.
That’s why people on a trip to Utopia have all my respect: they are generous, they are opening a way for us all.
To know more about my personal journey to utopia…
We all know which global challenges and concerns the world faces today.
Unfortunately, the international community lacks of adequate tools to manage all this.
All those who think that global citizens – as we all are- should do something will find a place for discussion in a Linkedin Group named Supranational Democracy.
it is a space to reflect and discuss – frankly and openly- about what to do and where to start from.
I think that possible solutions for a democratic globalization have to be intercultural and interdisciplinary.
Among the topics that we could discuss there there are: global governance; protection of human rights and development of civil and political rights at supranational level; digital democracy; innovative and creative governance; role of civil society and ways to raise awareness about the global dimension … and this is maybe just the tip of the iceberg.
It’s an open group: feel free to join, to invite new members, to contribute to discussions and suggest new topics for discussion… or even to watch what’s going on without joining.
You are very welcome!
Susanna
A supranational democratic organization requires its own legitimacy as well as independence by its member states: they are represented and participate actively in the decisional chain, but cannot keep the decisional process hostage of their own will.
In order to be free, an international organization needs an adequate financial independence, i.e. its own budget. Without it, its decisions aren’t the result of a balance of values and interests at stake, but become mere negotiations among the most influential capitals and, ultimately, the result of a balance of power – so undermining the added value of supranationality and multilateralism and reducing to zero the role of individuals. Real independence can be guaranteed only by specific statutory provisions and by an adequate budget.
But how a budget may be an independent one?
In 1970 a strong commitment for financial autonomy in the European Economic Community was mirrored by a genuine system of own resources – basically agricultural and import duties, complemented by a small quota of the harmonized value-added tax. National contributions (in a percentage of gross national incomes) were reintroduced in 1988 in order to complement a decrease in the own resource revenue, which became more and more relevant in the following decades as import duties decreased as an effect of evolving international trade rules.
As a consequence, what was supposed to be a transitional solution was reinforced over the years, reducing significantly the financial autonomy of the Union. It’s not surprising, now, that some States are more equal than others and speak with louder voice!
So, genuine own resources are a necessary complement to a democratic system and resources means – first of all- taxes.
The ancient slogan “no taxation without representation” may so be easily reversed, as “no representation without taxation” because what could elected representatives do with money which is gracefully granted by the richer (if not pleasing them)?
The debate on which taxes could better fit a supranational system is open and not only in the European Union: carbon taxes, financial transactions taxes, e-commerce taxes? What makes some proposals interesting is that they could have useful side effects, such as reducing CO2 emissions, decreasing inequalities, limiting tax avoidance.
Another interesting path of reasoning is considering some resources which are revenues without being taxes. See for instance the possible income coming from the common heritage of mankind (and taxes on related activities), which could be employed for the benefit of humanity.
Some examples of the “common heritage principle” may be found in international law: in the Outer Space Treaty (1967), in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972), in the never ratified Moon Treaty (1979), in the Montego Bay Convention establishing the Seabed International Authority (1982), in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights.
Which better use could be made of the principle of the responsibility of the present generations towards the future ones than designating some mankind’s sources of revenue to finance the functioning of a democratic global system?
It just happened to me to watch Troy Davis’ presentation at TED X Strasbourg
and I think that any global citizens should watch it as well: I couldn’t explain better how making world peace is the ultimate goal of supranational democracy…. and why supranational democracy is exactly what is needed to get there.
Thank you Troy Davis!
The two components of the word democracy are “demos” and “kratia”, in ancient greek: people and power/authority.
The authority existing -in greater or lesser degree- in international organisations is nowadays indisputable, but to have it exercised in the interest of the people, or legitimized by the people we need…. the people!
And therein lies the problem.
Many excellent scholars tried to build theories to frame global democracy: transnational democracy, cosmopolitan democracy, post-modern democracy. An important contribution was offered by legal theories such as global constitutionalism and global administrative law but….still nobody recognizes as certain the existence of a global population, a “demos” giving to these theories a necessary factual substrate.
There are several good reasons to explain why the very existence of a global demos is still controversial: the dubious legal capacity of individuals in international law; the distances; the deep cultural and linguistic gaps. A people is made so by a number of common features: cultural, linguistic, religious; it is the product of a common history and of shared values and traditions; it shares a sense of belonging. This is what we study at school and, later on, at university.
But is it still so?
I think I am a global citizen. If you are reading this post, chances are that you are too.
The social fabric is rapidly evolving, what has held true ten years ago -or even one year ago- no longer corresponds to reality.
Two indicators are essential to tell you if you are part of the emerging global demos:
1) you feel a citizen of the world, a human being inside humanity. Internet and social networks allow you to connect to people living in different countries, cultures, mindsets. The low cost travelling companies, the decrease in communication costs and the sharing economy had an impact on your life, encouraging your mobility and your opennes to new experiences and people.
2) you know that what happens in other areas of the world affects your reality, be it for good or for bad. You care about global problems and global public goods, you sign global petitions and get involved in global discussions, you visit websites as Avaaz or change.org, maybe you even join some NGO operating globally.
We are still a minority right now. Too many obstacles prevent most of the citizens to be global citizens: poverty, digital and cultural divide, ideology. But the number is growing. Daily.
For this reason, those who mantain that a global demos is still missing are right, but stating the contrary is not entirely wrong. There is a global demos in the making. And we are part of it.
Somebody saw this coming, some time ago 🙂
We know (or think to know) the exact meaning of the word “democracy”. Our idea of democracy is grounded on personal experiences of democratic – or undemocratic – national systems as well as on something we studied at school: the Magna Charta, the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen, the United States Declaration of Independence.
And we all know the origin of the word in ancient Greece from the two words “Demos” and “Kratia“: people and power. So, democracy literally means power to the people or power for the people. No doubt it means for us free elections, equality, pluralist society, fundamental rights, access to justice.
We tend to forget, nonetheless, that this definition is relative in space and time. In the ancient Athens as in the 13 American colonies there was an aristocracy living on the work of slaves and women enjoyed very few fundamental rights. Only in the XX century, our democracies acquired the current structure and still… we cannot say they perfectly mirror our ideal of democracy. Let’s face it: democracy is more a process than a state. Whatever the democracy we are in, there is always something we can do to improve it. This is clearly recognized in international rankings – such as the Democracy index or the Global democracy ranking.
Both rank countries according to levels or degrees of democracy, not just by its existence/non-existence. Not only democracy is different according to historical evolution, it is also different according to the territorial dimension we are in. Democracy in a city-state is radically different from democracy in a big country: different ways to build consensus, different ways to participate. In the first it is easy to use the instruments of direct democracy, in the second it is less. And still, both are states.
The difficulties involved in moving this democracy model from the state to the global arena are all too evident: we deal with a community of states and a community of individuals (humanity!), both crossed by deep cultural differences and dramatic inequalities. Not only there isn’t a shared concept of democracy in a framework different from the state, but it is simply impossible to apply to international organizations a model of democracy conceived in the eighteenth century for the state. Several attempts have been done by academia to build an autonomous model, but we are far from a shared vision. Moreover, international organizations are the result of a different evolutive path over the centuries, grounded on the principles of international law: a law for states, not for individuals inspired by the different logic of international relations.
So, a new democratic model for global institutions has to be implemented and, at the same time, old visions -not serving us anymore- have to be dismantled. Utopistic? For sure! But have we a different choice? Before an institutional formula for global democracy, we need a methodological approach to get there. The aim is double: to evaluate the existing “level” of democracy in international organizations and to propose possible reforms in line with the legitimate expectations of democracy emerging in the global civil society.
Utopistic? For sure! But have we a different choice? Before we imagine an institutional formula for global democracy, we need a methodological approach to get there. The aim is double: to evaluate the existing “level” of democracy in international organizations and to propose possible reforms in line with the legitimate expectations of democracy emerging in the global civil society.
My suggestion is to ground this process on values more than on rules and institutions: let’s identify values first. My choice? Legitimacy, Accountability, Inclusiveness. They will be explored, one by one, in the following posts.
Which is your idea of democracy? Do you have a different list of values? A ranking of priorities? I’d love to know!
The global challenges and concerns we face today are well known: the peaceful coexistence of states and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the deterioration of the environment and the need for sustainable development, the threats to financial stability, the tragic inequalities across the planet in wealth and democracy.
We need to do something. And, first of all, we need to reflect on what to do.
To face such challenges and to guarantee global public goods, the international community has created after world war II a number of international organizations responsible for the pursuit of specific goals, which have been given more or less adequate competences and tools.
Are these organizations democratic? Are they efficient? If the answer is no (or not enough) how could they be improved?
Could we – 75 years later – imagine something new? Is there a better way to organize coexistence inside the human family, not just aimed at avoiding conflicts but at thriving as species, in harmony with the Earth and with all the other living beings?
The awareness on these topics is growing. It is time to become creative, to network and exchange ideas, to recreate and co-create a new way of living together on this planet (maybe to dis-create something as well…).
Democracy is the result of a social pact: we are all involved.
Democracy nowadays cannot just be national as problems and challenges are getting more and more global.
To try to respond to the challenge, I decided to focus on what are (at least for me!) the three key ingredients of a modern democracy: legitimacy, accountability, inclusiveness. I built on them a paradigm for democracy in international organisations which I called democratic experimentation.
As individuals are an essential ingredient of democracy, I think that democratic international organization should be supranational, or move towards more advanced forms of supranationality. But how individuals can interact on a global stage, legitimize global fora, hold them accountable?
They may interact as civil society or just as informed public opinion. Internet plays a major role in allowing them to become global citizens, if (and where) internet access is guaranteed.
So many topics to discuss about, so important to deepen the analysis and offer solutions. The debate is open and you’re all welcome!
Susanna