The Mirage of Global Democracy

Abstract

The literature about global democracy deals with two different types of democratization: Type 1 is about spreading democracy across sovereign states as the basis for good governance. It focuses on the quality of the state/society-nexus: the balance between coercion, reward and identity. Type 2 is about democratizing world politics as such. In its most concrete expressions it focuses on the relationship between international society (a community of states) and world society (a community of people). The contemporary structure of multilevel governance provides the rationale behind this: national democracies are ineffective in controlling essential centres of power. This implies a need to scale up democracy to global proportions. However, in Type 1 considerations the term democracy often is an empty shell. This blinds observers for checks and balances and types of pluralism in non-democratic states. It also blinds them for misuse of democratic claims in democratic states. Aspiring global democracy in terms of Type 2 ignores that the presence of a central authority is a precondition inherent to the concept of democracy. Democratic theory cannot escape and is consequently caught up in its preconditions of a people (demos) and a government (cratos).

After Liberal Global Democracy: New Methodology for New Praxis

“…The first approach to global democracy thinking, communitarianism, is reflected in the antiglobalist reactions described earlier. Communitarian arguments hold that collective self-determination beyond country-state-nation units is impossible (Miller 1995;Dahl 1999;De Wilde 2011). This sceptical approach holds that: (a) planetary spaces are too large for popular control; (b) no globalscale demos is possible; and (c) global governance institutions cannot adequately connect with constituents on the ground.…”

Planet Earth and Humanity

“…– 27 Furthermore, we should urgently and with great invention, cope with the limits of growth. Humanity must embark on a new course to create a liveable society 28 and be prepared to defend it. But will we succeed?…”

Anachronistic Research in International Relations and Security Studies

“…However, it is a mistake to consider rule of law, stability, peace, transparency, checks and balances, and accountability only possible in a hierarchically organized state. 19 Moreover, at present, the majority of the world population is living in urbanized areas, and their share will increase, implying that people are more dependent on urban security than on national security.…”