Political participation at global level
Political participation at global level
The discussion above focused on democratic decision-making at the national level, as elections always take place within the boundaries of a nation-state. However, matters that affect people’s lives are increasingly of a global nature – climate change, food production, terrorist threats, to name a few.
DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Unfortunately, there is no global government to address these issues in a democratic way. The current institutions of global governance, such as the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization, are perceived to be minimally accountable to the general public. This situation is often perceived to be one of global democratic deficit. Given the unrealistic feasibility of a democratically-elected government at the global level, political participation takes the place of involvement with civil society organizations that transcend national boundaries and affect democratic processes beyond their border. Or in other words, political participation becomes ‘global public action’.
Public action is not to be understood solely as actions taken by elected governments, but also by direct efforts undertaken by the public at large to determine their lives. This can be done through collaborative actions – such as the participation of a group of citizens in the design and spending of a municipal budget – or adversarial action – such as demonstrations against the privatization of public services (Drèze and Sen, 2002, pv). The direct involve- ment of citizens in political processes, not through indirect representation, is crucial for a thriving democracy.
The term civil society refers broadly to the space between markets and states. It is:
a political space where voluntary associations deliberately seek to shape the rules that govern one or the other aspect of social life. ‘Rules’ in this conception encompass specific policies, more general norms, and deeper social structures. … Civil society exists whenever and wherever voluntary organizations try deliberately to mould certain governing rules of society. (Scholte, 2002, pp283–284)
It has been argued that civil society, taken in its global dimensions, is essential to making the global decision-making architecture more democratic. Scholte (2002, pp293–294) highlights six contributions of global civil society to making the economic and political system more democratic at a global level. First, global civil society gives voice to stakeholders. Civil society associations can open political space for social circles, like the poor and women who tend to get a limited hearing through other channels. For example, the organization ‘Shack/Slum Dwellers International’ plays a pivotal role in providing adequate
housing for those living in slum conditions. 4 Second, global civil society engages in public education activities and an effective democracy depends on an informed citizenry, and civic associations can raise public awareness and understanding of transnational laws and regulatory institutions. In this respect, we can cite Transparency International, a global civil society organi- zation that provides information about corruption and helps tackle the problem at national level. Third, global civil society fuels debate in and about global governance. For example, international NGOs like Oxfam, Action Aid and many others, and the campaign ‘Make Poverty History’, were influential
TOPICS
in mobilizing public opinion and press for trade reforms at the World Trade Organizations that were less detrimental to developing countries. Fourth, global civil society increases the public transparency of global governance. Pressure from civil society can help bring regulatory frameworks and operations into the open, where they become susceptible to public scrutiny, as witnessed at the Doha trade rounds, for example. Fifth, global civil society increases the public accountability of regulatory agencies; and, sixth, it provides legitimacy to global governance institutions.
Despite global civil society’s contribution to addressing the global democratic deficit, Scholte warns that strengthening and giving it more power is not necessarily the panacea to end all ills. He argues that global civil society organizations are often dominated by white middle-class Westerner ‘do- gooders’, that they can also function in a non-transparent way with secretive practices and leaders appointed rather than elected by members, and that their campaigns to change public opinion and contribution to global public reasoning might indeed carry biased information. For all these reasons, he concludes that one must be cautious in seeing global civil society as a way forward in addressing global problems democratically. The answer lies rather in deepening democracy at the national level itself, so that it can better design policies dealing with global problems in the long term. As is obvious from the arguments presented in this chapter, democracy is not a state that is reached, nor is it ever a completed process. Democracy is always in the making.
Questions
8.1. How would you describe the state of democratic institutions in your country?
8.2. Is democracy in your country responding to people’s needs? Briefly outline and discuss how this is being achieved.
8.3. What are the values constructed by democratic decision-making in your country?
8.4 Critically discuss how the political power of marginalized groups might
be enhanced in the context of military repression.
8.5 Give examples of civil society actions, at either the national or global
level, that have changed a policy decision.
Notes
1 For more information on democratic governance, see the resources on the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre at www.undp.org/governance/about.htm. See also the Governance and Social Development Resource Centre at www.gsdrc.org. 2 See, for example, the UNRISD research project on ‘Democracy, Governance and Wellbeing’ at www.unrisd.org. 3 See www.transparency.org. Transparency International further differentiates between corruption ‘according to rule’ – when a bribe is paid to receive preferential treatment for something that the bribe receiver is required to do by
DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
law – and corruption ‘against the rule’ – where a bribe is paid to obtain services the bribe receiver is prohibited from providing. 4 See www.sdinet.co.za. The success of this organization has been widely documented in Arjun Appadurai’s article ‘Capability to Aspire’, which will be discussed further in Chapter 11.