The Internal and External Levers to Achieve Global Democracy
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| Author | Daniele Archibugi,Marco Cellini |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12490 |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
The Internal and External Levers to Achieve
Global Democracy
Daniele Archibugi
Italian National Research Council (CNR), Rome and Birkbeck College, London
Marco Cellini
LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome
Abstract
The paper explores the methods to introduce democratic devices in global governance. The first part makes an attempt to
define what democratic global governance is and what its aims are. The second part provides some benchmark to identify
when and how international organizations, the most important and visible part of global governance, correspond to the val-
ues of democracy. The third part presents what we label the internal and the external levers. The internal lever is defined as
the ways in which democratization within countries helps to foster more transparent, accountable and participatory forms of
global governance. The external lever is defined as the ways in which international organizations contribute to promote
democratic transition and consolidation in their members. Neither the internal nor the external levers work effectively if they
are left to inter-governmental bargaining only. An active participation of non-governmental actors is needed in order to make
them effective. The paper finally discusses a list of proposals to democratize global governance.
What are democratic global governance aims?
Partisans of democracy have, at least two discomforts when
they observe the way in which the world is ruled. The first
is that not all countries of the world are democratic. The
second is that global decisions are not taken democratically
and, sometimes, even elected governments forget the basic
principles that have led them to power in foreign politics.
Some will phrase the same problems in terms of democratic
deficit in global governance but the notion can be elusive.
According to the first meaning, the democratic deficit in
global governance is attributable to the fact that the mem-
bers of the international community, namely the states, are
not sufficiently democratic. According to the second, the
democratic deficit is due to the fact that global governance
is not subjected to any democratic control (for a discussion,
see Moravcsik, 2005; Nye, 2001). Even the institutions that
have been designed with the purpose to increase legiti-
macy, transparency, and accountability in world politics,
such as international organizations (IOs), are not sufficiently
democratic in their norms and procedures. The first mean-
ing points out at an internal deficiency, the second to a
deficiency of the international system.
Both these deficiencies are real and strongly constrain the
full accomplishment of democracy. Internally, despite the
democratic wave started in 1990s, half of the countries of
the world still do not have elected governments. Even part
of the other half is not sufficiently democratic and the
march of democracy has still to make important steps
within countries. Not only autocracies, but even
consolidated democracies are rather reluctant to make their
global choices accountable, often even in front of their own
citizens.
The constitutional structure of intergovernmental organi-
zations (IGOs) do not resemble at all democracy as it has
been developed within states. The United Nations, the Inter-
national Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organizations, just
to mention a few of the most important IOs, do not con-
template the election of public officers by the citizenry. Even
the European Union, the IO that has been permeated by
democratic values, has a constitution that is much less
democratic than any of its members (Z€
urn, 2000). States are
often reluctant to concede their sovereignty to international
or supranational organizations (Maffettone, 2015) allowing
citizens to participate directly to global affairs. Shall we con-
sider the democratic deficit in global governance an issue
that can be denounced but not solved, or is there some-
thing that can be done about it? And, above all, if we iden-
tify the existence of at least two areas in which democracy
is not fully realized –the internal and the global –how are
they connected?
This paper provides a modest contribution to highlight
the linkages between the internal and the global dimension
of the democratic deficit, and to provide some suggestions
for action that could potentially be implemented by IOs,
individual governments and by the public opinion. Changes
introduced at the internal level can have important effects
at the global level and changes introduced at the global
level can have important effects at the internal level. Of
course, this is based on an assumption that it is worth
Global Policy (2017) 8:Suppl.6 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12490 ©2017 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 8 . Supplement 6 . October 2017 65
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial