Global Governance Agencies and Democracy

Unfortunately, global governance agencies do not at the moment provide the necessary further guar­antees of democracy. To begin with, there is very little direct popular involvement these institutions. Most meetings of the Worm Bank Board of Governors, the European Council of Ministers, the UN Security Council, and other such decision-taking bodies are held behind closed doors. Moreover, most of the world's citizens are completely ignorant of the day-to-day workings of these bodies. The organizations are largely realms of 'technopolitics', where economists, accountants, managers, engineers, chemists, lawyers, and other 'experts' are largely exempted from democratic scrutiny. When their policies have unhappy consequences—as in the case of the detrimental welfare effects of many structural adjustment policies, for instance—the agencies concerned are not held formally and pub­licly accountable.

Some people would argue that global governance agencies are indirectly representative, insofar as state delegations are in attendance to speak for the various national populations of the world. However, most states have pretty dubious demo­cratic credentials. Moreover, the rule of one-state-one-vote that prevails in many global organs means that, formally at least, Andorra and India have an equal say. Elsewhere, the reservation of permanent membership and veto powers in the Security Council to five states is democratically unjustifiable. So, too, are quota-based votes in the IMF and World Bank, where one-quarter of the member state control three-quarters of the votes.

The undemocratic character of global governance agencies is being increasingly acknowledged. In the case of the European Union, some (limited) steps have been taken since the late 1970s to increase popular access and direct participation in suprastate governance. Most of these organizations have also moved towards greater public disclosure of information concerning their operations. However, such reforms are few in number and half-measures at best. Proposals for more far-reaching democratization have so far gone nowhere.

Global Market Democracy?

Other worrying reductions of democracy have resulted from the previously described marketization of governance. True, champions of laissez faire, claim that the market enlarges the scope for population participation and control. From their perspective, global democracy is achieved when consumers and capitalists (rather than citizens) vote with their pocketbooks (rather than their ballots) for the best, value for money (rather than the maximization of human potential) in a global market (rather than a territorial state).

However, this vision presumes that money and materialism are the be-all and end-all of politics. Traditional democratic concerns with human dignity and equal opportunity are subordinated to obsessions with managerial efficiency and product quality. In market democracy accountability means the boardroom's responsibility to shareholders and the company's responsibility to the customer. Yet in practice shareholders rarely affect corporate pol­icies and consumers are often captives of oligopoly. Most disturbingly, of course, access and participa­tion in market governance are determined primar­ily by wealth and income. Very few people receive invitations to attend meetings of the World Economic Forum and like bodies.