Dr. Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World
Parliament
Towards a
World Parliament: A Summary of the Debate and a
Proposal
for an Electronic World Parliament on the Internet
organized
by Civil Society
Paper presented to the First Virtual Congress
of the Community of World Citizens, July 2006,
by Dr. Rasmus Tenbergen1
1. Introduction
It has often been claimed that current world
order should be democratized and that a World
Parliament would be a necessary and desirable
element of such a democratic world order
(Held 1995: 273, Patomäki/Teivainen 2004:
139). There is, however, no detailed and
systematic general analysis of the potential
creation of a World Parliament, which includes
an overview of the different possible models
and an investigation of their advantages and
disadvantages. Such a general analysis could
help to investigate whether and how a World
Parliament would contribute to the solution
of the problem of the so-called “democratic
deficit“ in the international system.
The following paper tries to accomplish a
first step in this direction. It summarizes the current
debate on a World Parliament and develops
theses regarding the potential creation of a
World Parliament. This introduction (1.) is
followed by a summary of the debates on the
global democratic deficit (2.), the
desirability of a World Parliament (3.) and concrete
proposals for a World Parliament (4.). A
separate section discusses the scenario of elections
for a World Parliament organized by civil
society on the internet (5.). The conclusion (6.)
summarizes the findings of this paper in ten
theses. This paper is not a value-free
description of different positions, it is
trying to argue in favor of a World Parliament in general
and a special approach in particular. It is
therefore an invitation to debate the findings in the
conclusion.
1 This
paper is the result of many discussions with many different partners. I am
grateful for all their
contributions, namely to
Fabian Kyrieleis and Kenneth Kostyo for their important input.
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
2
2. The Global Democratic
Deficit
The analysis of past research on global
democracy and a World Parliament shows an
interesting ambiguity: on the one hand, the
whole spectrum of global governance, global
democracy, and global democratization is
subject of many scientific publications (among
many others are Drydyk /Penz 1997, Holden
2000, Scholte 2000,
Patomäki/Teivainen/Ronkko 2002, Slaughter
2002, Zürn/Zangl 2004) and almost a fashion
trend, because there seems to be a consensus
that the democratic deficit (i.e. the insufficient
legitimization of important international
institutions) is one of the main problems of
international relations (Crawford/Marks 1998
and Nye et al. 2003); on the other hand,
concrete proposals how to solve this problem
are very rare.
There are many contributions to special
aspects of this problem: to the reform of the United
Nations (Boutros-Ghali 1993b, Ruggie 2002,
Patomäki/Teivainen 2004: 17) and the
European Union (for example the articles of
Greven, Offe, Zürn and Grande in Greven/Pauly
2000: 35), to the necessity of more
accountability (Held 2004a: 264), to the role of civil
society (Florini 2003: 219), and to the
change in economic institutions such as World Trade
Organization, International Monetary Fund,
and World Bank (Stiglitz 2002:214). These
contributions are helpful for a discussion on
good global governance, but they do not offer
coherent solutions for the democracy deficit
problem.
Proposals to reform the United Nations must
manage the dilemma, that they either do not go
far enough to create significant change or go
too far to be acceptable for current decisionmakers.
The analysis of the European Union as a case
study must address the question of
whether Europe can serve as a role model for
other regions or even for the world as a whole
(Greven/Pauly 2000). This applies in
particular to the role of the European Parliament as a
potential model for a World Parliament
(Falk/Strauss 2001) both in terms of the history and
the structure of this institution (Levi
2001).
Some contributions to the reform of the
economic institutions, for example on the
parliamentary control of the World Trade
Organization, are concrete in so far as they offer
specific proposals for the institutional
design (Mann 2004, Shaffer 2004, Skaggs 2004). They
are, however, limited to the political
control of economic processes and exclude other
political aspects like security policy. In
contrast, investigations of the role of civil society often
deal with many different political areas, but
on a rather abstract level when it comes to
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
3
concrete proposals. The lowest common
denominator seems to be the claim for more
transparency and accountability
(Kovach/Neligan/Burall 2003).
This applies also to theoretical works in
this context. There are abstract hints on a “coming
democracy” (Florini 2003) and even the
broadly discussed and far-reaching theory of a
“cosmopolitanism” by David Held (Held 1995,
Held 1996, Held/McGrew 2002, Held/König-
Archibugi 2003, Held 2003, Held 2004b,
Archibugi 2002), but even in this most innovative
concept the focus seems to be more on
theory-building than on concrete proposals for
detailed change in old or for new
institutions.
3. The Debate on a World
Parliament
The proposal to create a World Parliament has
already generated important support in the
political arena, for example Olivier Giscard
d’ Estaing’s “Committee for a World Parliament“
lists as members of the honorary boards names
such as Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Nelson
Mandela, Sonia Gandhi, Shimon Peres and
Jacques Delors. Many academics, however,
remain sceptical regarding the possible
creation of a World Parliament.
The most important and most concrete contribution
to the discussion is the debate between
Joseph Nye and Richard Falk and Andrew
Strauss in “Foreign Affairs“ and in “World Link” on
the desirability of a World Parliament
(Falk/Strauss 2001, Falk/Strauss 2002, Nye 2001, Nye
2002b). A “World Parliament” shall be defined
for the following as “a global assembly where
representatives are selected on the basis of
one person, one vote” (Patomäki/Teivainen
2004: 139).
Falk and Strauss argue that the creation of a
global parliament would be the natural and
logical way to overcome the global democratic
deficit (Falk/Strauss 2001). For Falk and
Strauss the European Parliament serves as a
role model: similar to the European
Parliament, the World Parliament should start
with only advisory powers and be founded by
only twenty to thirty avant-garde states
which are economically and geographically diverse.
They hope that as time progresses it would
gain more legitimacy and formal competencies
(Falk/Strauss 2001).
The proposal of Falk and Strauss has received
some attention and has been discussed in
many contributions (Archibugi 2002, Monbiot
2003, Bummel 2005). This applies, however,
more to smaller and more specialized
publications like “The Federalist Debate” (compare for
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
4
example Levi 2001, Cocciolo 2004 and
Vallinoto 2004). The proposal has not led to a
paradigm shift and has not been supported by
mainstream academia. It has for example
been rejected by Joseph Nye because Nye does
not see the necessary condition of a strong
sense of global community realized and he
assumes that citizens of many states are not
willing to be constantly outvoted by one
billion Chinese and one billion Indians (Nye 2002b).
This argument is attacked by Falk/Strauss and
others (Monbiot 2003: 119) with the hint that
empirical evidence shows, that multi-national
parliaments vote according to issues rather
than according to ethnic aspects
(Falk/Strauss 2002). This trend could even be strengthened
through a World Parliament and lead to “a
political culture less beholden to nationalism and
more engaged in promoting human security”
(Falk/Strauss 2002: 3).
Nye’s criticism that popular elections “might
well produce an undemocratic body that would
interfere with the delegated accountability
that now links institutions to democracy” (Nye
2002b: 5) is rejected by Falk and Strauss.
They argue that a democratically elected body
cannot interfere with global democracy, that
“far too many national leaders are not
democratically elected” and that even
democratically elected representatives should not
decide on international questions without
control (Falk/Strauss 2002: 2). The core of their
disagreement with Nye is according to Falk
and Strauss a dispute on the nature of the
international system: Falk and Strauss do not
accept state sovereignty as the leading
principle of the international system, they
would rather like to see this replaced by citizen
democracy (Falk/Strauss 2002: 3).
4. Concrete Proposals for
a World Parliament
There are not many concrete proposals for a
World Parliament in the academic discussion.
Such proposals can be found on the internet
(Alliance 21 2003, Johansen 2003) or in
publications which are of a more political
than scientific nature (some references of this kind
are in the footnotes of Monbiot 2003 and
Patomäki/Teivainen 2004). Monbiot offers a
proposal with arguments similar to Falk and
Strauss. He tries to develop a simple model
based on the principle of “one person, one
vote” and approximately six hundred multinational
electoral districts (Monbiot 2003: 99).
Monbiot focuses, like many other authors, more on the
general argument than on concrete details of
the organization of elections to a World
Parliament. The main difference of his model
to Falk and Strauss is that his main actor is not
the national state, but civil society, which
can elect a World Parliament “without permission”
of the national states (Monbiot 2003: 101).
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
5
Bummel refers in his strategy paper for the
“Committee for a Democratic UN“ to the proposal
of Childers and Urquhart (Childers/Urquhart
1994) and others to “create a Parliamentary
Assembly at the United Nations as new
institution which is established as consultative, semiautonomous
subsidiary body to the UN General Assembly
through a vote of the General
Assembly under Article 22 of the UN charter”
(Bummel 2005: 109) and lists thirteen concrete
proposals on details of this institution
(Bummel 2005: 108).
A detailed summary of both, the general
discussion on democratic transformation of global
institutions and special aspects of a
potential World Parliament, is offered in the work of
Patomäki and Teivainen (Patomäki/Teivainen
2004). The authors refer not only to the main
debates but also to critics like Bello and Wahl
who fear too much centralization if a World
Parliament is established (Walker 1993, Bello
2002, Teivainen 2003a, Patomäki 2002a).
After a critical analysis of the advantages
and disadvantages of a World Parliament Patomäki
and Teivainen regard the organization of a
global referendum “based on a statistically drawn
representative sample of voters in different
countries” as a meaningful first step towards a
World Parliament (Patomäki/Teivainen 2004:
146).
A short pamphlet by Andrew Strauss offers a
comparative overview on different models of a
World Parliament or a “Global Parliamentary
Assembly“ (Strauss 2005). After a summary of
his arguments for a World Parliament from
other texts he distinguishes between four models:
1. an amendment of the UN Charter according
to articles 108 and 109
2. the creation by the UN General Assembly as
a Subsidiary Organ
3. Civil society organized elections
4. an interstate treaty process
Strauss calls the UN Charter reform model the
„classical“ model (compare Sohn/Clark 1958)
and the one with the best legitimacy from the
perspective of world public opinion, but he
expects strong resistance against this plan
because it requires the consent of two thirds of
the UN General Assembly plus all permanent
members of the Security Council. The problem
of veto powers disappears in the second
model, Article 22 of the UN charter requires only a
two thirds majority of the UN General
Assembly. In addition to legal doubts whether a
parliament could in principle be called a
“subsidiary organ” of the UN General Assembly,
Strauss believes that this model would create
political compromises. One example is the
recommendation of Bummel and others (Bummel
2005: 110) that “in the first development
stage, the delegates of the Parliamentary
Assembly at the United Nations are uniformly
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
6
elected from the midst of the parliaments of
the participating countries” (Bummel 2005: 110).
Strauss fears that the special loyalties of
national parliamentarians could endanger the
success of the project.
Compromises of this kind would be unnecessary
if the elections for a World Parliament
would be organized by civil society. Even
though Strauss preferred this model in the
beginning (Falk/Strauss 2000) and even outlined
a model for its implementation (Strauss
2005: 8), he mentioned tremendous
difficulties to organize and finance such a civil society
process. This problem would be far less
important in the last model of a treaty between
avant-garde states which already have the
financial and organizational resources for
complex elections. In addition to the
arguments mentioned above (Falk/Strauss 2001),
Strauss highlights that this model gives the
power to organize the parliament to the
participating states, which posses an
interest in the success of the project (Strauss 2005.
10).
5. Elections organized by
Civil Society: A provisional electronic World Parliament on
the Internet
If the thesis is accepted that the creation
of a World Parliament would be a positive
development, all four models described by
Strauss seem to be desirable. There is, however,
no consensus even among supporters of a World
Parliament on the question, which of these
models is the most feasible and should be
followed to implement the idea. This paper claims
that all four models would constitute a
positive development on the international system, but
that elections organized by civil society
pose the best chance of an implementation. This
applies even more, if in the beginning provisional
electronic versions of a World Parliament
are created on the internet.
Pilot projects of this kind do already exist.
Out of the many initiatives in this direction, only the
most radical example should be mentioned: the
“World Parliament Experiment“ on
http://www.world-parliament.org. It would go
beyond the framework of this paper to describe
this project and its aspects in detail, only
a few basic aspects should be mentioned.
Based on the thesis that the creation of a
World Parliament is the more likely the more world
citizens support it, individuals are invited
to support the establishment of a provisional World
Parliament through their vote. They
participate in a decision-making process with only one
ground rule which cannot be changed: that all
aspects of the project (content, procedures,
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
7
and representatives) can be changed at any
time though proposals of anybody, if there is
enough support based on “one person, one
vote”. This is not a decision for direct and against
representative democracy, this experiment
tries to combine the advantages of both models
by enabling the delegation of votes for
smaller or larger parts of the project (the main
parliament, special sub-institutions or even
single issues). It is the task of elected
representatives to present the results of the
opinion-building process as claims to real life
decision-makers. Both, the legitimacy and
power of these campaigns will increase with
growing numbers of participants. After a
critical mass has been reached, it should be
possible to transform this provisional
electronic parliament with only moral and advisory
powers to an institution that exercises a
significant influence on actual political processes.
It seems to be important for the success of
this project that its ambition is neither
overestimated nor underestimated. On the one
hand, it seems to be crucial in the beginning
phase to keep the claim of a model for a global
institution against accusations of naivety, on
the other hand, it should be clear in every
phase of the project that representation and
legitimacy in a narrow sense can only be
claimed for the participants of the project.
If elections organized by civil society
include electronic parliaments, some objections against
this model lose their importance, for example
the financial and organizational difficulties
mentioned by Strauss (2005: 8) are reduced
dramatically. Monbiot (2003: 104) mentions the
possibility of a cheap electronic assembly,
but regards it as an insufficient replacement of
face-to-face meetings. He does not even
consider the possibility of a combination of both
formats, which could begin with electronic
meetings that lead to non-virtual gatherings in a
later phase.
The strongest argument for elections
organized by civil society and against the other three
models seems to be that measurement of
success is much easier in this plan. While it is
difficult to see how far away the United
Nations are from significant reform steps or how
close avant-garde states are to signing a
treaty on a World Parliament, a civil society
campaign for a World Parliament gains
legitimacy and chances of success with every single
individual supporting it. This argument can
also be used to work against wide-spread
pessimism of global democracy activists. The
collection of enough individual supporters is
difficult enough, however, it is already a
sufficient condition for the realization of the project
and is therefore a concrete and realistic
program of implementation.
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
8
6. Conclusion
The main results of this paper are summarized
in the following theses:
1. The global democratic deficit is one of
the main problems of international politics;
2. The creation of a World Parliament would
be an important step to solve this problem;
3. The four scenarios of Strauss (2005) to
create a World Parliament (amendment of the
UN Charter, a subsidiary organ of the UN
General Assembly, elections organized by
civil society, and an interstate treaty
process) are all desirable;
4. Elections organized by civil society
posses the best possibility of success;
5. This possibility of success can be
additionally increased if the process starts with a
provisional electronic parliament on the
internet;
6. A provisional electronic World Parliament
on the internet should give its electors the
possibility to change any aspect (content,
procedures, representatives) at any time, if
there is enough support for a proposal based
on “one person, one vote”;
7. A provisional electronic World Parliament
on the internet should give its electors the
possibility to decide on how far they want to
influence the decision-making process
directly and in how far they want to delegate
their vote to representatives;
8. A provisional electronic World Parliament
on the internet should from the very
beginning, even with little support, claim to
be a model for a global institution, but it
should be clear in every phase of the project
that representation and legitimacy in a
narrow sense can only be claimed for the
participants of the project;
9. A provisional electronic World Parliament
on the internet should from the very
beginning, even with little support, try to
influence real political processes;
10. The campaign for the creation of a World
Parliament depends to a large degree on
the number of individual supporters. It
should therefore put a main focus on this
aspect.
Rasmus Tenbergen: Towards a World Parliament
No comments:
Post a Comment