Global democracy and the democratic minimum: Why a procedural account alone is insufficient

Abstract

In this critical comment on the global democracy debate, I take stock of contemporary proposals for democratizing global governance. In the first part of the article, I show that, empirically, many international institutions are now evaluated in terms of their democratic credentials. At the same time, the notions of democracy that underpin such evaluations are often very formalistic. They focus on granting access to civil society organizations, making policy-relevant documents available online or establishing global parliamentary assemblies to give citizens a voice in the decision-making of international organizations. In the second part, I challenge this focus on formal procedures and argue that a normatively persuasive conception of global democracy would shift our focus to areas such as health, education and subsistence. Contrary to much contemporary thinking about global democracy, I thus defend the view that the institutions we have are sufficiently democratic. What is needed are not better procedures, but investments that help the weaker members of global society to make effective use of the democracyrelevant institutions that exist in contemporary international politics.

The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: the UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance

“…First, given orchestration is a relatively new phenomenon, it is important to have an open conceptualization about how democracy might be pursued under these conditions. Second, recent literature has stressed that thinking about democratization in terms of a set of values helps make clear that potential trade-offs and symbiosis between those values (Dingwerth 2014).…”

The Wisdom of the Many in Global Governance: An Epistemic-Democratic Defense of Diversity and Inclusion

“…Enhancing people's competence to contribute to deliberation and decisionmaking about public affairs requires addressing pervasive ignorance and the deprivation of basic needs that inhibit participation. There may be strong moral justifications for minimizing inequalities (Dingwerth 2014), but the jury is out on whether there are strong instrumental reasons for doing so. 8 What is clear is that there are strong instrumental reasons for meeting a minimum threshold of basic needs.…”

“…On this point I disagree withDingwerth (2014), who urges global democrats to prioritize development goals over procedural reforms. I argue that procedural and economic goals can be pursed in tandem because they are not in competition: one requires an investment of economic resources and the other requires an investment of political will.15 My intention is not to present ideal and possible as a dichotomy: what is politically possible changes over time, and this allows for the possibility of moving toward a theoretical ideal.…”

Translating Technical Diplomacy: The Participation of Civil Society Organisations in International Standardisation

“…For instance, rational institutionalist studies focus on the supply and demand of standards: while the supply of open and fair procedures is seen as a prerequisite for participation, the demand-side depends on information, expertise, interest and operational capacity -resources seen as generally lacking among CSOs 25 . Other studies examine how the inclusiveness of participation supports a formal recognition of global governance mechanisms such as standards 26 . They perceive CSOs as stakeholders whose involvement affects the credibility and legitimacy of international standards 27 .…”