Taming Globalisation: Upgrading democracy for the 21st ... · anarchy. Those in power in the United States have a clear and longstanding position that international law should not

Taming Globalisation:Upgrading democracy for the 21st Century

Dan Plesch

pamphlet.qxd 4/28/2003 21:00 Page i

First published by Charter88 2003

ISBN 1 873311 95 8

Charter8818a Victoria Park SquareLondonE2 9PB

020 8880 6075www.charter88.org.uk

© Charter88Edited by Nicholas DusicDesigned and typeset by Rory FisherPrinted by Crowes Complete Print

pamphlet.qxd 4/28/2003 21:00 Page ii

Taming GlobalisationUpgrading democracy for the 21st Century

Dan Plesch

Charter88

pamphlet.qxd 4/28/2003 21:00 Page iii

iv

Charter88Charter88 is the campaign for a modern and fair democracy. Over80,000 people have signed the Charter since its launch in 1988.

Charter88 is an independent organisation that campaigns for awritten constitution, a Bill of Rights and for the reform of parliamentand local government. It also works in areas relating to humanrights, citizenship and the European Union.

For more information on our campaigns or to sign the Charter,please see our website at www.charter88.org.uk or contact us [email protected].


pamphlet.qxd 4/28/2003 21:00 Page iv

v

Contents

The author and acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Upgrading representative democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Democratising globalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Democratic representation in international institutions and the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Sectoral and regional institutions: the WTO,World Bank, IMF, and NATO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

pamphlet.qxd 4/28/2003 21:00 Page v

vi

The Author

Dan Plesch is a writer and broadcaster and member of the Councilof Charter 88. He is a Senior Research Fellow at Royal UnitedServices Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI). He was educated atNottingham and Bristol Universities and has a BA in History and aqualification in Social Work. In 1987 he founded the British AmericanSecurity Information Council (BASIC), in Washington, DC, anddirected the Council until 2001. His research and policy advocacyexperience includes US and European foreign and military policy,arms control and conflict prevention measures; Western nuclearweapons doctrine; nuclear weapons safety; US-NATO dynamics andthe politics of intervention.

He has worked in a wide variety of ‘coalitions of the willing’ thatlinked governments, parliamentarians and non-governmental groupsengaged in international security issues. He has written for a widerange of publications including The Guardian, The New York Timesand The Washington Post. He is one of the few Britons to be askedto testify to the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate. Hislatest publication was ‘Sheriff and Outlaws in the Global Village’(Menard Press, 2002).

He has a longstanding interest in constitutional issues and haswritten on these issues in the Guardian and the Independent. Hisancestors were involved in the first People’s Charter of the LondonWorking Men’s Association in 1838.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Karen Bartlett and Paul Hirst of Charter88 forthe invitation to write this paper, Ruth Chenoweth for her researchsupport and Dr Lindsay Forbes for helping edit the text and theCouncil and staff of Charter88 for their comments. The viewsexpressed in this pamphlet are my own and do not necessarilyreflect those of Charter88. Any errors are my responsibility.

pamphlet.qxd 4/28/2003 21:00 Page vi

Introduction

The current international crisis over Iraqreinforces the need for greater authority andlegitimacy of international institutions before

they are destroyed or rendered useless. The breakdownof the UN and the growth of right-wing anarchism inUnited States foreign policy are destroying the gainsmade over the last fifty years in international co-operation. By turning international institutions intoelected assemblies, which can begin in any country orby any political party, we can build stronger and moredemocratic international institutions.

Upgrading representative democracy Democratic accountability has not kept pace withglobalisation; our global institutions are notdemocratic. We should rectify this by sending electedrepresentatives to represent us at the United Nations,World Trade Organisation, North Atlantic TreatyOrganisation and the European Union. By

Executive Summary

pamphlet.qxd 4/28/2003 21:00 Page 1

2 Dan Plesch

democratising these institutions, people would have thepower to hold them to account.

In the UK, there is no constitutional or legal barrierfor sending elected representatives to internationalinstitutions. Posting MPs abroad is an easy way tointroduce democracy into these institutions, and aninterim step on the way to direct election of our inter-national representatives. In countries with proportionalrepresentation, any party can decide to specify on theirlist the individuals that it proposes should representthe country abroad.

Democratising globalisationThe democratisation of global institutions would have

positive effects. They include:■ Giving institutions more authority over powerful

rogue corporations and states;■ Demystifying remote international institutions and

decision-making processes by having electedambassadors who can gain a real understandingof how they work;

■ Greater coverage of institutions in the media, withpoliticians giving interviews – due to increasedpublicity and exposure of elected politicians;

■ Strengthening of diplomatic negotiations with theUS;

■ Expanding the number of people who understandhow foreign affairs really work; and

■ Creating greater openness and transparency.


3Taming Globalisation

Democratic representation in internationalinstitutions and the EU

United NationsMany believe that the United Nations is weak andundemocratic. However, it can be democratised,without waiting for institutional reform. There isnothing regulating how countries choose their representatives; countries could send political repre-sentatives to the United Nations, instead of careerdiplomats. This would give the UN greater legitimacy,and lessen the ability of a minority of powerful statesand corporations to dominate it.

Sectoral and regional institutionsPeople view the World Bank, International MonetaryFund and World Trade Organisation as agents of therich and powerful nations and corporations.International financial institutions have responded tonumerous protests about their democratic illegitimacywith retrenchment and cosmetic change, rather thanreform. NATO and OSCE, the major security institu-tions, are operated by military officials and are cloudedin secrecy, making democratic control hard to achieve.Greater access to information, without jeopardisingnational security, is crucial in gaining democraticcontrol of security institutions.


4 Dan Plesch

The European UnionThe European Union is criticised for its democraticdeficit. The Convention on the Future of Europe shouldmandate electing national representatives to Unioninstitutions. This would include electingCommissioners and making the Council of Ministersdirectly elected permanent representatives. The Unionshould elect some Union positions as a whole, such as,the proposed EU President and the EU’s overseasrepresentation. By taking such a position, the EUcould lead the way in creating a new era of globaldemocracy.

ConclusionDemocratising international institutions would be aradical transformation of the international system.However, it is important to remember that politicalinstitutions have and must continue to change with thetimes. If we are going to influence globalisation wemust be able to have greater direct control over inter-national decision-making. Electing representatives tothese institutions plays an essential part in creating ademocratic global society.


Democracy needs to be upgraded. Power seemsbeyond democratic control. We don’t feelrelevant.

It is no accident that the world is being plunged intoanarchy. Those in power in the United States have aclear and longstanding position that international lawshould not govern the United States. Never-mind thatthis violates America’s own constitution that statesthat treaties are the supreme laws of the land.

I have written for years about the growth of thisright-wing anarchism in US foreign policy. However,the US is not alone, many other governments also havelittle interest or faith in international structures.

Nevertheless, the obvious truth is that smallcountries always need multilateral bodies and the mostpowerful do not. At a global level, the UN system of thelast fifty years had begun to put constraints on war.On many other issues global agreements were takinghold.

1Introduction


6 Dan Plesch

Now all of this is in jeopardy. The American right isalready applauding the death of the United Nationsand the triumph of preventive war in the case of Iraq.

It is essential that we reinforce the authority andlegitimacy of the international institutions before theyare destroyed. This will take the form of protest, as wehave seen around the world or from stands by nationalparliaments, for example in Turkey.

We must, and can do a great deal more to inject newauthority in global institutions. By electing our ambas-sadors we can turn international institutions intoelected assemblies. The process of electing interna-tional representatives can begin in any country, and byany political party.

Imagine a situation in which in a few years timedozens of countries had decided to send elected repre-sentatives to key institutions, their authority would betransformed.


In the United Kingdom and in other nations, weshould elect more representatives to the institutionsthat make the important decisions affecting our

lives. These include our overseas representatives to theEuropean Union, World Trade Organisation, NorthAtlantic Treaty Organisation, the United Nations andthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

More and more people around the world can vote; butelectoral power is not plugged in to the places whereimportant decisions are now made. We feel stronglyabout the principles of democracy, freedom and therule of law, but in practice, it would seem that democ-racy does not make a difference, and that we are freejust so long as we can pay for our freedoms.

In the United Kingdom, the offices we elect have notchanged much since the Middle Ages. In the Great Hallin Winchester, in Southern England, there is a wallpainting that shows the MPs that representedWinchester down the centuries from 1283. It is moreusual to see lists of Kings and Queens, but this single

2Upgrading representativedemocracy


8 Dan Plesch

example illustrates not only the antiquity of the repre-sentative system of government, but also shows thatthe principal office of government that we elect today isthe same as it was then. Our government has grownimmensely at home and abroad, but the structure ofdemocracy is pretty much unchanged, with an electedlocal council and one MP at Westminster. But althoughwe have the vote and the House of Commons controlsthe government, decision-making now takes place at ahigher – global – level that seems beyond our reach.The European Parliament has so little power, which iswhy people have little interest in its elections. Nowonder we feel left behind and left out.

At the time of the first Parliament, the idea of acentral-state was just beginning to develop. At thattime, it may have seemed as remote and implausible tostart sending MPs from say Stafford to London as itnow may do to start electing our national representa-tives to the UN or the World Trade Organisation.

The impetus that led people to create a centraldecision-making representative body can be usefullycompared to the concerns over globalisation today.Hundreds of years ago, the concern was that the Kingcould levy taxes on the people, usually to support hiswars. Grassroots pressure led to the gradual establish-ment of the principle that there could be no taxationwithout the say of Parliament, whose members repre-sented distinct geographic areas – the towns and citiesof England. In other European lands, a similar evolu-



tion occurred in the early Middle Ages, but was all toooften crushed by the power of absolute monarchy.

Today, the situation at a global level has some roughparallels. Decisions being made at the global level areaffecting our daily lives, whether they are about climatechange, trade laws or missile treaties. None of theseinternational institutions, not even the EU, taxes us; sothe comparison to the Middle Ages should not beexaggerated. Nevertheless, decisions that are made faraway have a great impact on our lives.

Global institutions consist of the nation states of theworld, but the connection between the citizen and thenational representative is extremely remote. Theserepresentatives are usually professional diplomats fromthe civil service. Even foreign ministers are not electeddirectly to their position, the Prime Minister appointsthem. The chain of command from the people to thoseselected to carry out policy appears non-existent to thepublic.

The weakness of this link is used by organisations,such as companies and non-governmental groups, toinfluence the process. The corporate sector has theoverwhelming power in this area. I have seen at closequarters how influential the corporate lobbies can be.On economic and environmental issues, their ability towork the system stems from their wealth. All too oftengovernments and their officials believe that the powerof this wealth is a reality that nothing can challenge.Introducing elected ambassadors will not be a panacea,


10 Dan Plesch

but it will enable the popular will to change the corpo-rate aristocracy. Over time this process createddemocracy at the national level and it will do so againat the global level. In the present system, if you want toget involved in politics, you face years as a backbenchMP, followed by waiting on the favour of the PrimeMinister to get into a job that interests you. There is nomeans of saying: ‘that is where the decisions are beingmade for my country – I want to be elected to do thatjob’.

It is precisely because the centres of decision-makingare closed that people choose to become journalists orjoin NGOs as a means of influencing the process; fromtime to time this can work well. The campaign onlandmines is an example of NGO lobbyists sitting downwith governments of the same opinion and planningstrategies to influence the media and sympatheticpoliticians in many countries to get the best policyagreed. But the one ingredient missing from thesediscussions is the elected representative, who is backin London and only appears once in a blue moon tosign the papers and give a soundbite.

Electing representatives to international organisa-tions would allow people with non-governmentalexperience in foreign affairs the opportunity to makechanges from the inside; this could be the next phasein the development of a global civil society. Expandingdemocracy is the key to making it relevant again. Weneed to globalise our democracy to keep pace with the



globalisation of business, commerce, defence andenvironmental issues. We can transform the way inter-national politics is conducted by sending electedofficials as our representatives to the United Nations,the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other institu-tions. These representatives would supervise thediplomats who currently do the job. Previous attemptsto improve democratic input to international institu-tions by constitutional reform and consultativearrangements have lacked leverage to redistributepower. Democratising our representation would give usnew leverage.

We could start by sending elected representatives toofficial positions in international institutions. InBritain, there is no constitutional or legal obstacle toposting MPs serving as government ministers to be ourpermanent representatives at the institutions thatgovern global issues in Brussels, New York orWashington. There is a historical precedent in Britainfor posting MPs abroad. In the Second World War,Winston Churchill did not simply rely on ambassadorsfrom the Foreign Office; he posted Harold Macmillan,an MP, to Cairo as his minister for the Middle East.

Posting MPs abroad to represent us is an easy way ofintroducing democracy into our global institutions. Itshould only be regarded as an interim step on the wayto direct election of our international representatives.Countries with proportional representation (PR) couldintroduce this change to elected international


12 Dan Plesch

representatives in one step. In these countries voterschoose between national lists from each party. Themore votes the party attracts the more people on its listget elected. Particular individuals on the list could bedesignated as the party’s nominee to represent thecountry at each international institution.

In nations with PR national lists, for exampleHolland, even a single party could begin this process.This would, by itself, trigger debate in an electioncampaign and might bring other parties to follow suit.Of course the party might not, at first, end up in thenew government, or it might be in coalition with nooverseas representatives. On the other hand, it mightbe elected and its sibling parties in other nations mighttake up the idea as well.

In one or two elections time, we might find more andmore countries sending elected representatives to keyinstitutions from different countries. Experience showsthat actions in other countries can speed up reform inBritain. During the late 1980s, I revealed NATO andPentagon plans to deliver thousands of new Hydrogenbombs to Europe. In Britain, under the tight grip of theThatcher government, campaigns involving Labour MPsand articles in the Observer had no effect. However,when German journalists took up the issue it soonbecame a major national and international issuebecause the German government and public had adifferent attitude to battlefield nuclear weapons. Thedelivery programmes were cancelled, despite Prime



Minister Thatcher’s objections, because of action onthe continent. This type of multinational collaborationhas become routine for non-governmental organisa-tions working on international issues.

In Britain, the first step should be posting ministersabroad. There may be an opportunity to move on to thenext stage, by introducing PR, when the presentgovernment loses its majority. A domestic and interna-tional strategy for directly elected representativesshould be prepared in advance to take advantage offuture political changes.

PR is only one route to electing our overseas repre-sentation. In addition to listing prospective MPs, ballotpapers could include a list of representatives to globalinstitutions elected by the whole nation. This wouldmean a change from our present system, where theCabinet is chosen by the Prime Minister, to one wheremembers of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister,are directly elected.

A future British ballot paper should give people achoice of representatives for a range of institutions: theEuropean Union, the World Bank, the World TradeOrganisation, the United Nations and NATO.

All ideas for change face opposition. It may be said: ‘People don’t vote already, so why waste energyintroducing more elections few people vote in.’

People tend not to vote if they think it will not make adifference. Turnout was low in the last British generalelection. It was clear that Labour was going to win


14 Dan Plesch

because there was no reasonable alternative. In placeswith a massive majority for one party, people do notbother to vote. In the US, only about 10% of theCongressional Districts are at all competitive. The partyin power, be it Democrat or Republican, will get inalmost regardless. Furthermore, people do not vote ifthey see the institution as powerless, this is the case inmany local elections and in elections for the EuropeanParliament.

People do vote when it matters to them and whenthey think it can make a difference. In elections aboutthe transfer of council housing to housing associationsthe vote can be over 80%. People are also more likely tovote if the process is easy.

We should place the organisations people are mostbothered about under democratic control; theInternational Monetary Fund might well top the list.We should make voting easier by continuing the workof the current UK government of putting pollingstations in supermarkets and holding elections at theweekend.

‘The last thing we need is more politicians’It is easy to sympathise with this view, until you look

at the alternative, which is to have people in chargethat we have no control over.

At present we have countless silent and unaccount-able bureaucrats who may be readier to meet the needsof business rather than the country as a whole. If theyreceived the media attention given to politicians, we



would soon be complaining far more about theirconduct.

Electing representatives to fill official positions willnot solve all the world’s problems, what it will do isgive us a chance to influence and make decisions. Atpresent international institutions are out of reach andare in a world of initials – WTO, EU, UN, NATO – thatwe have a hard time even understanding. Having morepoliticians to abuse or even applaud brings mattersdown to earth and under our control.

‘We should leave things to the officials. They know whatthey are doing. Ignorant politicians following somemedia or business agenda just mess things up.’

This is an understandable point of view; it governsthe way things are at present. However, officials andappointees sometimes also follow their private andbusiness agendas – it is just much harder to find outwhat they are. Officials often do an excellent job, butthey are trained not to take much initiative and have aculture that emphasises continuity and resistance tochange. In addition, the bureaucratic system is organ-ised so that people are moved from office to office tobuild experience and reduce the opportunity forcorruption, so there is often far less expertise in adepartment than people realise.

In the end, the argument that “they” know best isagainst democracy, we might as well leave it to theQueen and the hereditary peers.


16 Dan Plesch

‘All these new politicians will cost enormous amounts of money.’

People have an understandable concern about thewaste of public money. However, the salaries andexpenses of our representatives are cheap if youconsider the benefits of being able to control how thepolicies that effect our lives are made. They are alsocheaper than any comparable example in the businessworld. People who do not want to see more democraticcontrol of these powerful institutions often make thesearguments.


Over the past century, a global system of govern-ance has begun to emerge with the UnitedNations at its heart. The most recent major

advance was the creation of the International CriminalCourt.1

When looking towards the next century, it is clearthat the issues that concern us all will be decided moreand more at a global level. We may see one of severalmodels developing a system of one overwhelmingsuperpower, an oligarchy of the most powerful corpora-tions or democratic global governance. The alternativeis an anarchic system of competing states and corporations.

As global institutions develop, we should apply thecore democratic values of our society to them.Extending representative democracy directly into thesebodies is likely to have a number of positive effects.

3Democratising globalisation –making globalisation work for us


18 Dan Plesch

Politicians would get a far better understanding of the issues

and paperwork with which they deal.

At present, ministers, however capable, areoverwhelmed with material. The norm is that they turnup at an international meeting, sign documents and flyhome. They may pay close attention to new material,but there is a mass of material that officials tend topresent as routine that only few ministers becomefamiliar with and which often contain important issues.If they were in the negotiations every day, they wouldalso start to build relationships with colleagues inother countries. However, this positive change cannothappen at present because there are not enough minis-ters to go around.

With elected representatives on the scene all the time, there

will be much more news and information from places where the

organisational culture favours secrecy.

Ambassadors and other officials rarely give interviews.If a journalist asks them to give an interview today,they will reply: “You have to ask the minister’s officeback in London”. In this way, international institutionshave for decades barely let anything they do see thelight of day. There is much more media attention ifpoliticians are present at meetings. If these involve, sayfisheries ministers, the journalists and televisioncameras will wait into the small hours of the morningfor an interview, but meetings of officials receive littleor no coverage. A politician in residence in New York,



Washington or Geneva would want to, and indeed haveto, give interviews. The secrecy of institutions will startto crumble. There is only so long that a politician willbe able to maintain the line that everything is confiden-tial, especially if an MP from another country such asCanada or South Africa is giving a briefing down thehall.

Democratising our international institutions will also help

correct the cultural weakness of our present system of

diplomacy in negotiating with the US.

European official representatives abroad are careerdiplomats, whereas their US counterparts tend to betrained in a business culture. The business culture isfar more assertive and result-focused than the moreconciliatory style of traditional diplomacy. Othernations can be outmatched, not simply by US power,but by the negotiating approach of its officials. Ifcountries that use the traditional European diplomaticmodel sent elected representatives to reinforce theirdiplomats, this would help address this weakness intheir representation.


20 Dan Plesch

As the culture of foreign policy changes and becomes more

open, we will find a new generation of people who understand

how to run global affairs.

Today, even most politicians see foreign affairs as ahidden and mysterious process. Outside the diplomaticservice, there is a serious shortage of people withexperience in how the world of international politicsworks.

It can be argued that party politicians cannot matchthe professionalism of ambassadors trained in foreignministries. However, as in any Whitehall ministrytoday, the officials would continue to provide a vitalsupport and implementation role to the policy directiongiven by politicians.

It can be argued that having many politicians awayfrom home could lead to difficulties with communica-tion and policy co-ordination. Would there beconflicting mandates between a Prime Minister anddirectly elected representatives? How would we managethe possibility that financial policy may be developedby several different people: one at the European Union,one at the World Bank and one at the InternationalMonetary Fund?

Resolving this kind of problem is, however, part ofthe normal business of government, but it tends to behidden from public view. For example, policy onweapons exports involves the Foreign Office, Ministry ofDefence, Department of Trade and Industry and thePrime Minister, as well as on occasion, the Department



for International Development. The need to co-ordinatepolicy across departments is the rule, rather than theexception, and is one of the main functions of CabinetCommittees.

In a future system of elected international represen-tation, ministries of national governments would haveseveral ministers posted abroad. The Treasury wouldhave Ministers of State reporting to the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer from the European Union, the WorldTrade Organisation, the International Monetary Fundand the World Bank. The Ministry of Defence wouldhave a Minister at NATO and the European Union. TheForeign Office would have Ministers in the EU, atNATO, the Organisation for Security and Cooperationin Europe and the UN. Other Ministries would alsohave elected ministers stationed in the EU Council ofMinisters.


The United Nations

Many member states, non-governmental organi-sations and academics believe the UnitedNations to be weak and undemocratic. The

UN Commission on Global Governance discussed thisissue in their 1995 report “Our Global Neighbourhood”.It recommended that we grasp the opportunityprovided by the end of the Cold War to reform interna-tional institutions, improve global security and achievea more equitable economic system. Five years later, atthe Millennium, the authors revisited these issues,concluding that little progress had been made on anypart of the agenda and that a number of events hadreduced the authority of the UN, notably NATO actionin Kosovo.

Discussions have also focused on making theSecurity Council and the General Assembly morerepresentative2. There have been suggestions forincluding, as new permanent members of the SecurityCouncil, states with large populations such as India

4 Democratic representation ininternational institutions and theEuropean Union



and Brazil and incorporating the former imperialpowers, France and the UK, into a European Unionseat.

There is also an argument for states’ voting power inthe General Assembly to be proportionate to theirpopulation3 and that this should form the basis of anelected General Assembly. The idea of world electionshas been discussed ever since the UN was created4.At that time, Labour’s Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin,told the House of Commons:

“I would merge that power [of the House of Commons]into the greater power of a directly elected worldassembly…” “I am willing to sit with any body, or anyparty, or any nation to try to devise a franchise or aconstitution for a world assembly…”5

All of these proposals have at least one problem incommon: they can make no progress until there is aconsensus between all states to make change. As thereare considerable vested interests and rivalries, noprogress has occurred or is likely in the foreseeablefuture. The UK and France are unlikely to give up theirpower on the Security Council. The rivalry betweenIndia and Pakistan is an important obstacle to givingIndia more prominence. Robin Cook, the first ForeignSecretary in the Labour government, has expressed hisgreat regret at being unable to secure reform of theSecurity Council during his time in office.

Discussion on the reform of the Security Councilcontinues in the permanent UN working group on “TheQuestion of Equitable Representation on and increased


24 Dan Plesch

Representation in the Membership of the SecurityCouncil and other Matters Relevant to the SecurityCouncil”. But no change has happened yet, or lookspossible for the future, on the basis of presentproposals.

Making the UN more democratic does not have towait for every country to agree. There is nothing in theregulations of the UN, or indeed any other internationalbody, which determines how countries choose theirrepresentatives. Countries could send political repre-sentatives to join the career diplomats that representthem at present. Once a few nations began this newpractice, it is likely that more would follow.

Getting politicians into the UN would bring its activi-ties into the open. At present, professional diplomats,who are use to a culture of secrecy, conduct the UN’sbusiness. I have spent years reporting and lobbying onmilitary and disarmament issues at the UN, perhapsthe most secretive area of international politics. Mostdocuments that are in theory public are only seen byofficials. The role of myself and my colleagues was toget these documents into the light of day, and to briefpoliticians in national capitals about what their ownambassadors and those of other countries were saying.The debates got much livelier and more pointed whenthe politicians got involved.

If existing global trends continue, the UN will haveless and less authority; a few powerful states andglobal corporations will dominate. However, in five or



ten years the UN could be evolving into an electedassembly. It would have renewed legitimacy and powerto tackle global problems. It would be far more difficultfor the international news media to ignore anddisparage the UN.

Sectoral and regional institutions: the WTO,World Bank, IMF, OSCE and NATOThe arguments for introducing representative democ-racy into the UN apply just as well to the other majorinternational institutions. We should look forward to aworld of elected assemblies thrashing out the issues inBrussels, Geneva, Paris and New York.

There has been little recent debate on the democraticnature of NATO and the OSCE, but there has been anactive discussion about the democratic deficit in inter-national financial institutions: the World TradeOrganisation, the World Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund. It is argued that these bodies only acton behalf of the rich and powerful nations and corpora-tions. The conservative response is that the decisionsof these bodies are taken by states, many of which aredemocratic and they are implementing policiesdesigned to encourage free trade and free enterprise.However, this argument has done nothing to reducethe concerns of the anti-globalisation movement.

The response from these institutions to public protestabout their democratic deficit has been retrenchmentand cosmetic change rather than reform. In some


26 Dan Plesch

cases, meetings are no longer held at all. Instead,delegates now can meet virtually using a videoconfer-ence link, so there is no longer any physical place toattract protest. The International Monetary Fund hasrecognised public concerns to an extent. It has madearrangements for occasional meetings of consultativegroups of members of parliament from variouscountries, but it is not changing its power structure.

NATO and the OSCE, the major security institutions,each have consultative assemblies comprised of repre-sentatives from the parliaments of more than fortynations of the Euro-Atlantic region. However, thecentral functions of these organisations are conductedby officials, not elected representatives, drawn from theforeign and defence ministries of member states.Military issues are so clouded in secrecy thatdemocratic control is hard to achieve. Few politicianshave military experience and since the decline of thepeace movements there are fewer people outsidegovernment concerned with strategic issues. There hasbeen a growth of academic and NGO involvement in theissue of intervention, but this has generally been fromthe humanitarian perspective, rather than from theperspective of geo-political strategy.

The US Freedom of Information Act is responsible forcreating a more open culture in the US on securityissues than anywhere in Europe creates, with theexception of Sweden. This is responsible for the hightechnical quality of US studies on strategic issues.



Applying US standards of freedom of information, inthe US-led alliances, should be the minimal acceptablestandard in NATO and amongst other US allies. If weare to go along with US military policy, we should havethe same level of democratic control as in the US,without jeopardising national security.

The European UnionThe nations and institutions of the EU are engaged inthe Convention on the Future of Europe, which iscreating a European Constitution. These negotiationshave centred on the issue of sovereignty. This sover-eignty discussion consists of a debate between thosewho favour a Europe of nation states and those whofavour creating a federal European state.

Whatever the result of this negotiation, it is essentialthat the issue of democracy in Europe be given at leastas much attention as sovereignty. Improved democraticrepresentation throughout its institutions should bethe test of acceptability for the new EuropeanConstitution, whatever new powers and political structures are created.

The debate on the European Constitution engagesboth those who favour the EU becoming a new FederalState and those who prefer a Europe of nation states.In either case, it is important that as many as possibleof the institutions of the EU should be elected,including its overseas representation. The EU should


28 Dan Plesch

take the lead in creating a new era of global represen-tative democracy.

The European Constitution should create institutionswhere national representatives to all its institutions areelected, and the EU should elect some positions as awhole. We should create an EU where all the commis-sioners are directly elected by national populations,rather than nominated by the Prime Minister of thecountry concerned. The Council of Ministers consists ofrepresentatives of each member state and is brokendown into many committees covering different areas,such as the environment and health. At present,officials conduct the day-to-day work with ministersarriving only for key meetings. Democracy would bebetter served if there were elected representativespresent all the time, so that the Council of Ministerswould actually be made up of ministers on a day-to-day basis and not just at summit time. A newlydemocratic Commission and Council would work withthe proposed elected EU President. These internalconstitutional issues are being addressed more fully inCharter88’s “Five Democratic Tests for Europe”.

The discussions of how the EU engages the world asa whole have, so far, centred on military issues and onthe EU’s development partnerships in several regions ofthe world. There has been little attention paid to thequestion of how the people of the EU are representedin the wider world. It is important to set the reforms wewant for the EU in the context of the reforms we want



at home, and in the governance of the world as awhole. It is essential that ideas for enhanced democ-racy at the global level flow through the EU and areneither diverted nor blocked by the changes made inBrussels.

Another reason, for considering how Europe relatesto the wider world, is that changes within the EU mayhave negative consequences for the way the EUoperates on the world stage. For example, one result ofcreating a federal state is that nations would havereduced representation internationally. It has beenargued that France and the UK should give up theirseats on the Security Council in favour of one EUrepresentative. Applying this argument to the other EUcountries would mean that none would lose theirrepresentation at the UN in favour of an EU represen-tative. If one EU representative to the UN were ever tohappen, the Union should elect this representative as awhole.

Those who argue for a common EU position in foreignand military affairs need to think more clearly aboutthe way the present Europe of nation states is repre-sented abroad. It is not satisfactory that nationalrepresentation should wither away until it is all vestedin a single EU diplomat representing an EU President.

At present, the EU is obliged to act as group in allinternational bodies including NATO and the UN,however this was not the case with Iraq. EU memberstates informed by the Commission and led by the


30 Dan Plesch

‘troika’ of present, past and future EU Presidenciesdevelop a collective view that is then carried forward. It is well known that there is an informal arrangementthat when a member state has a particular interest, forexample France and the UK’s nuclear weapons, thentheir views are deferred when reaching collectivedecisions. More importantly, member states regionalinterests and colonial histories give the EU a globalreach that would be greatly weakened if member statesno longer had international representation.

EU member states are most unlikely to give up theirnational representation abroad. Whatever the viewmight be in old established states such as the UK orthe Netherlands, it is inconceivable that nations suchas Croatia, in the first flush of national pride, wouldagree to cease to be represented abroad.

The importance of national ambassadors will declineas the power of the centralised EU institutionscontinues to grow. As a result, even if they are retainedin present form, these national ambassadors maybecome merely ceremonial. Rather than see theserepresentatives dwindle into insignificance, we shouldtake the opportunity to revitalise their role.

The EU should take the lead in helping create a newera of global democracy. Encouraging member states tosend elected representatives too, can also do this. In afew years time the EU should be sending a delegationof 25 directly elected representatives to each of themajor global institutions. Such a democratically elected



delegation would act as a co-ordinated group much asit does at present. It would grow beyond being adelegation of officials to being a mature and self-confi-dent political group able to speak for and to itscitizens. Such a delegation would do a great deal totransform the climate in all the global bodies and helpencourage other nations to also elect their representa-tives. It would also help set an example, encouragingnon-democratic states to become democratic, as itwould reinforce democracy as the norm.

This form of overseas representation could fit intomost of the options for a European Constitution,regardless of the outcome of the debate between feder-alists and supporters of national rights in Brussels.Moreover, as the type of representation nations chooseis decided by them, and not at the EU level, theelection of overseas representatives could be introducedseparately to the agreement of the EU constitution.

Without such reforms, the Union will fall more andmore into the hands of a self-serving elite. Europeanpolitics could also see extremist parties benefiting frompublic revulsion at the collusion of the mainstreamparties in robbing the people of their rights. A key testfor whatever new institutions are created is that theyshould be elected.


The opportunities to have our views expressed ininternational affairs are few and far between.Electing representatives to international institu-

tions would allow us to apply the power of democracymuch more directly at the international level.Democratising international institutions would be aradical transformation of the international system.Although all these changes may be seen as over-dramatic, democracy must keep up with globalisationor it will continue to be overrun by corporate powerand the strength of the most influential.

It is important to remember that political institutionshave and must continue to change with the times.These proposals should be seen as a natural evolutionof representative democracy to parallel the emergenceof the global village. One parallel may be drawn fromthe way the US Constitution evolved; originally, staterepresentatives indirectly elected the US Senate. Thegrowth of the country and the development of aneducated and engaged population required that the

5 Conclusion



people should not and could not be kept at arms-length from the bodies that represented them.

We must no longer accept being kept at arms-lengthfrom international institutions; they must be democrat-ically accountable if we are going to entrust them withso much power over our lives. It is not acceptable thatour system of democracy remains unchanged – localand national elected representatives and appointedinternational diplomats – when the process of globali-sation is changing politics the world over. If we aregoing to influence globalisation, we must be able tohave democratic control over international decision-making.

Electing officials to international institutions isespecially important due to the growing crisis over USunilateralism in international affairs and the fact thatso many issues facing us today are on a global level. Itis crucial that international institutions are democrati-cally strengthened, and not torn down by theself-interests of a few powerful nation-states. Applyingdemocratic principles to international institutions isthe only reform that will make them accountable to theworld’s people. By electing representatives to theseinstitutions, we can begin creating a democratic globalsociety.


34 Dan Plesch

References

1 See www.un.org/law/icc/2 See http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/reform.htm3 Ryan, S. (2000). The UN and International Politics.

Macmillan: London.4 Coates, K. (1988). Think Globally Act Locally: The

UN and the Peace Movements. Spokesman.5 Murphy, T.T. (1948). Labour’s Big Three. Bodley

Head. p.234


The prospect of a national identity cardwas first raised by the Home Secretaryfollowing the terrorist attacks in theUnited States on September 11th 2001.Charter88 put together an extensivecoalition to oppose the tentative plans.The government soon retreated from theproposals and accepted that nationalidentity cards were not an effectivecounter-terrorist measure.

However, the government is nowconsidering introducing a “universal

entitlement card”. Once again, the claims made for such a card needcareful and considerable scrutiny. The serious implications for civilliberties need to be understood.

This pamphlet, produced by Charter88, brings together a range ofcontributions from individuals and groups concerned about the possibleintroduction of a national identity card – or “universal entitlementcard” as the government refers to them in its consultation paper. Thecontributors to the debate come from diverse perspectives and includeKaren Bartlett, Director of Charter88, Peter Lilley, Conservative MP forHitchin and Harpenden, Fiona Mactaggart Labour MP for Slough,Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman. All, however,conclude that the introduction of identity cards should be resisted.

For a copy of this pamphlet please contact


Tel. 020 8880 6088www.charter88.org.uk


General elections are won and lost on the back of a fewthousand votes in about 100 marginal constituencies.

The House of Commons does the Government's biddingrather than holding it to account.

The House of Lords is made up of people we did not elect.

The people who dominate politics are still white, male andmiddle class.

We need a democracy in which we all have a share.

We need politicians we can trust.

We need to know what’s going on.

We need rights that can’t be taken away. We need a vote that countshowever and wherever we cast it.

If you agree, find out why it is time to unlock democracy and addyour name to ours below.





Documents

Taming Globalisation: Upgrading democracy for the 21st ... · anarchy. Those in power in the United States have a clear and longstanding position that international law should not