Taming Globalisation: Upgrading Democracy for the 21st Century

8/22/2019 Taming Globalisation: Upgrading Democracy for the 21st Century

1/44

Taming Globalisation:Upgrading democracy for the 21st Century

Dan Plesch

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


2/44

First published by Charter88 2003

ISBN 1 873311 95 8

Charter8818a Victoria Park SquareLondonE2 9PB

020 8880 6075www.charter88.org.uk

Charter88

Edited by Nicholas DusicDesigned and typeset by Rory FisherPrinted by Crowes Complete Print

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


3/44

Taming GlobalisationUpgrading democracyfor the 21st Century

Dan Plesch

Charter88

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


4/44

iv

Charter88

Charter88 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


5/44

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 institutionsand 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


6/44

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, and

directed 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 wide

range 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 Peoples Charter of the LondonWorking Mens 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 views

expressed 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


7/44

Introduction

T

he current international crisis over Iraq

reinforces the need for greater authority and

legitimacy of international institutions before

they are destroyed or rendered useless. The breakdownof the UN and the growth of right-wing anarchism in

United States foreign policy are destroying the gains

made over the last fifty years in international

co-operation. By turning international institutions into

elected assemblies, which can begin in any country or

by any political party, we can build stronger and more

democratic international institutions.

Upgrading representative democracyDemocratic accountability has not kept pace with

globalisation; our global institutions are not

democratic. We should rectify this by sending elected

representatives 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


8/44

2 Dan Plesch

democratising these institutions, people would have the

power to hold them to account.

In the UK, there is no constitutional or legal barrier

for sending elected representatives to international

institutions. Posting MPs abroad is an easy way to

introduce democracy into these institutions, and an

interim step on the way to direct election of our inter-

national representatives. In countries with proportional

representation, any party can decide to specify on their

list the individuals that it proposes should represent

the country abroad.

Democratising globalisation

The democratisation of global institutions would havepositive effects. They include:

Giving institutions more authority over powerful

rogue corporations and states;

Demystifying remote international institutions and

decision-making processes by having elected

ambassadors who can gain a real understanding

of how they work; Greater coverage of institutions in the media, with

politicians giving interviews due to increased

publicity and exposure of elected politicians;

Strengthening of diplomatic negotiations with the

US;

Expanding the number of people who understand

how foreign affairs really work; and Creating greater openness and transparency.



9/44

3Taming Globalisation

Democratic representation in internationalinstitutions and the EU

United NationsMany believe that the United Nations is weak and

undemocratic. However, it can be democratised,

without waiting for institutional reform. There is

nothing regulating how countries choose their

representatives; countries could send political repre-

sentatives to the United Nations, instead of career

diplomats. This would give the UN greater legitimacy,

and lessen the ability of a minority of powerful states

and corporations to dominate it.

Sectoral and regional institutionsPeople view the World Bank, International Monetary

Fund and World Trade Organisation as agents of the

rich and powerful nations and corporations.

International financial institutions have responded to

numerous protests about their democratic illegitimacy

with retrenchment and cosmetic change, rather thanreform. NATO and OSCE, the major security institu-

tions, are operated by military officials and are clouded

in secrecy, making democratic control hard to achieve.

Greater access to information, without jeopardising

national security, is crucial in gaining democratic

control of security institutions.



10/44

4 Dan Plesch

The European UnionThe European Union is criticised for its democratic

deficit. The Convention on the Future of Europe should

mandate electing national representatives to Union

institutions. This would include electing

Commissioners and making the Council of Ministers

directly elected permanent representatives. The Union

should elect some Union positions as a whole, such as,

the proposed EU President and the EUs overseas

representation. By taking such a position, the EU

could lead the way in creating a new era of global

democracy.

ConclusionDemocratising international institutions would be a

radical transformation of the international system.

However, it is important to remember that political

institutions have and must continue to change with the

times. If we are going to influence globalisation we

must be able to have greater direct control over inter-

national decision-making. Electing representatives tothese institutions plays an essential part in creating a

democratic global society.



11/44

Democracy needs to be upgraded. Power seems

beyond democratic control. We dont feel

relevant.

It is no accident that the world is being plunged into

anarchy. Those in power in the United States have aclear and longstanding position that international law

should not govern the United States. Never-mind that

this violates Americas own constitution that states

that treaties are the supreme laws of the land.

I have written for years about the growth of this

right-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 small

countries always need multilateral bodies and the most

powerful do not. At a global level, the UN system of the

last fifty years had begun to put constraints on war.

On many other issues global agreements were taking

hold.

1Introduction



12/44

6 Dan Plesch

Now all of this is in jeopardy. The American right is

already applauding the death of the United Nations

and the triumph of preventive war in the case of Iraq.

It is essential that we reinforce the authority and

legitimacy of the international institutions before they

are destroyed. This will take the form of protest, as we

have seen around the world or from stands by national

parliaments, for example in Turkey.

We must, and can do a great deal more to inject new

authority in global institutions. By electing our ambas-

sadors we can turn international institutions into

elected assemblies. The process of electing interna-

tional representatives can begin in any country, and by

any political party.Imagine a situation in which in a few years time

dozens of countries had decided to send elected repre-

sentatives to key institutions, their authority would be

transformed.



13/44

In the United Kingdom and in other nations, we

should elect more representatives to the institutions

that make the important decisions affecting our

lives. These include our overseas representatives to the

European Union, World Trade Organisation, NorthAtlantic Treaty Organisation, the United Nations and

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

More and more people around the world can vote; but

electoral power is not plugged in to the places where

important decisions are now made. We feel strongly

about the principles of democracy, freedom and the

rule of law, but in practice, it would seem that democ-racy does not make a difference, and that we are free

just so long as we can pay for our freedoms.

In the United Kingdom, the offices we elect have not

changed much since the Middle Ages. In the Great Hall

in Winchester, in Southern England, there is a wall

painting that shows the MPs that represented

Winchester down the centuries from 1283. It is moreusual to see lists of Kings and Queens, but this single

2Upgrading representative

democracy



14/44

8 Dan Plesch

example illustrates not only the antiquity of the repre-

sentative system of government, but also shows that

the principal office of government that we elect today is

the same as it was then. Our government has grown

immensely at home and abroad, but the structure of

democracy is pretty much unchanged, with an elected

local council and one MP at Westminster. But although

we have the vote and the House of Commons controls

the government, decision-making now takes place at a

higher global level that seems beyond our reach.

The European Parliament has so little power, which is

why people have little interest in its elections. No

wonder 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 that

time, it may have seemed as remote and implausible to

start sending MPs from say Stafford to London as it

now 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 central

decision-making representative body can be usefullycompared to the concerns over globalisation today.

Hundreds of years ago, the concern was that the King

could levy taxes on the people, usually to support his

wars. Grassroots pressure led to the gradual establish-

ment of the principle that there could be no taxation

without the say of Parliament, whose members repre-

sented distinct geographic areas the towns and citiesof England. In other European lands, a similar evolu-



15/44


tion occurred in the early Middle Ages, but was all too

often crushed by the power of absolute monarchy.

Today, the situation at a global level has some rough

parallels. Decisions being made at the global level are

affecting our daily lives, whether they are about climate

change, trade laws or missile treaties. None of these

international institutions, not even the EU, taxes us; so

the comparison to the Middle Ages should not be

exaggerated. Nevertheless, decisions that are made far

away have a great impact on our lives.

Global institutions consist of the nation states of the

world, but the connection between the citizen and the

national representative is extremely remote. These

representatives are usually professional diplomats fromthe civil service. Even foreign ministers are not elected

directly to their position, the Prime Minister appoints

them. The chain of command from the people to those

selected to carry out policy appears non-existent to the

public.

The weakness of this link is used by organisations,

such as companies and non-governmental groups, toinfluence the process. The corporate sector has the

overwhelming power in this area. I have seen at close

quarters how influential the corporate lobbies can be.

On economic and environmental issues, their ability to

work the system stems from their wealth. All too often

governments and their officials believe that the power

of this wealth is a reality that nothing can challenge.Introducing elected ambassadors will not be a panacea,



16/44

10 Dan Plesch

but it will enable the popular will to change the corpo-

rate aristocracy. Over time this process created

democracy at the national level and it will do so again

at the global level. In the present system, if you want to

get involved in politics, you face years as a backbench

MP, followed by waiting on the favour of the Prime

Minister to get into a job that interests you. There is no

means of saying: that is where the decisions are being

made for my country I want to be elected to do that

job.

It is precisely because the centres of decision-making

are closed that people choose to become journalists or

join NGOs as a means of influencing the process; from

time to time this can work well. The campaign onlandmines is an example of NGO lobbyists sitting down

with governments of the same opinion and planning

strategies to influence the media and sympathetic

politicians in many countries to get the best policy

agreed. But the one ingredient missing from these

discussions is the elected representative, who is back

in 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-governmental

experience in foreign affairs the opportunity to make

changes from the inside; this could be the next phase

in the development of a global civil society. Expanding

democracy is the key to making it relevant again. Weneed to globalise our democracy to keep pace with the



17/44


globalisation of business, commerce, defence and

environmental issues. We can transform the way inter-

national politics is conducted by sending elected

officials as our representatives to the United Nations,

the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other institu-

tions. These representatives would supervise the

diplomats who currently do the job. Previous attempts

to improve democratic input to international institu-

tions by constitutional reform and consultative

arrangements have lacked leverage to redistribute

power. Democratising our representation would give us

new leverage.

We could start by sending elected representatives to

official positions in international institutions. InBritain, there is no constitutional or legal obstacle to

posting MPs serving as government ministers to be our

permanent representatives at the institutions that

govern global issues in Brussels, New York or

Washington. There is a historical precedent in Britain

for 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 of

introducing democracy into our global institutions. It

should only be regarded as an interim step on the way

to direct election of our international representatives.

Countries with proportional representation (PR) couldintroduce this change to elected international



18/44

12 Dan Plesch

representatives in one step. In these countries voters

choose between national lists from each party. The

more votes the party attracts the more people on its list

get elected. Particular individuals on the list could be

designated as the partys nominee to represent the

country at each international institution.

In nations with PR national lists, for example

Holland, even a single party could begin this process.

This would, by itself, trigger debate in an election

campaign and might bring other parties to follow suit.

Of course the party might not, at first, end up in the

new government, or it might be in coalition with no

overseas representatives. On the other hand, it might

be elected and its sibling parties in other nations mighttake up the idea as well.

In one or two elections time, we might find more and

more countries sending elected representatives to key

institutions from different countries. Experience shows

that actions in other countries can speed up reform in

Britain. During the late 1980s, I revealed NATO and

Pentagon plans to deliver thousands of new Hydrogenbombs to Europe. In Britain, under the tight grip of the

Thatcher government, campaigns involving Labour MPs

and articles in the Observer had no effect. However,

when German journalists took up the issue it soon

became a major national and international issue

because the German government and public had a

different attitude to battlefield nuclear weapons. Thedelivery programmes were cancelled, despite Prime



19/44


Minister Thatchers objections, because of action on

the continent. This type of multinational collaboration

has become routine for non-governmental organisa-

tions working on international issues.

In Britain, the first step should be posting ministers

abroad. There may be an opportunity to move on to the

next stage, by introducing PR, when the present

government loses its majority. A domestic and interna-

tional strategy for directly elected representatives

should be prepared in advance to take advantage of

future political changes.

PR is only one route to electing our overseas repre-

sentation. In addition to listing prospective MPs, ballot

papers could include a list of representatives to globalinstitutions elected by the whole nation. This would

mean a change from our present system, where the

Cabinet is chosen by the Prime Minister, to one where

members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister,

are directly elected.

A future British ballot paper should give people a

choice of representatives for a range of institutions: theEuropean Union, the World Bank, the World Trade

Organisation, the United Nations and NATO.

All ideas for change face opposition. It may be said:

People dont vote already, so why waste energy

introducing more elections few people vote in.

People tend not to vote if they think it will not make a

difference. Turnout was low in the last British generalelection. It was clear that Labour was going to win



20/44

14 Dan Plesch

because there was no reasonable alternative. In places

with a massive majority for one party, people do not

bother to vote. In the US, only about 10% of the

Congressional Districts are at all competitive. The party

in power, be it Democrat or Republican, will get in

almost regardless. Furthermore, people do not vote if

they see the institution as powerless, this is the case in

many local elections and in elections for the European

Parliament.

People do vote when it matters to them and when

they think it can make a difference. In elections about

the transfer of council housing to housing associations

the vote can be over 80%. People are also more likely to

vote if the process is easy.We should place the organisations people are most

bothered about under democratic control; the

International Monetary Fund might well top the list.

We should make voting easier by continuing the work

of the current UK government of putting polling

stations in supermarkets and holding elections at the

weekend.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 charge

that we have no control over.

At present we have countless silent and unaccount-

able bureaucrats who may be readier to meet the needs

of business rather than the country as a whole. If theyreceived the media attention given to politicians, we



21/44


would soon be complaining far more about their

conduct.

Electing representatives to fill official positions will

not solve all the worlds problems, what it will do is

give us a chance to influence and make decisions. At

present international institutions are out of reach and

are in a world of initials WTO, EU, UN, NATO that

we have a hard time even understanding. Having more

politicians to abuse or even applaud brings matters

down to earth and under our control.

We should leave things to the officials. They know what

they are doing. Ignorant politicians following some

media or business agenda just mess things up.

This is an understandable point of view; it governsthe way things are at present. However, officials and

appointees sometimes also follow their private and

business agendas it is just much harder to find out

what they are. Officials often do an excellent job, but

they are trained not to take much initiative and have a

culture that emphasises continuity and resistance to

change. In addition, the bureaucratic system is organ-ised so that people are moved from office to office to

build experience and reduce the opportunity for

corruption, so there is often far less expertise in a

department than people realise.

In the end, the argument that they know best is

against democracy, we might as well leave it to the

Queen and the hereditary peers.



22/44

16 Dan Plesch

All these new politicians will cost enormous amounts

of money.

People have an understandable concern about the

waste of public money. However, the salaries and

expenses of our representatives are cheap if you

consider the benefits of being able to control how the

policies that effect our lives are made. They are also

cheaper than any comparable example in the business

world. People who do not want to see more democratic

control of these powerful institutions often make these

arguments.



23/44

Over the past century, a global system of govern-

ance has begun to emerge with the United

Nations at its heart. The most recent major

advance was the creation of the International Criminal

Court.1

When looking towards the next century, it is clear

that the issues that concern us all will be decided more

and more at a global level. We may see one of several

models developing a system of one overwhelming

superpower, an oligarchy of the most powerful corpora-

tions or democratic global governance. The alternative

is an anarchic system of competing states andcorporations.

As global institutions develop, we should apply the

core democratic values of our society to them.

Extending representative democracy directly into these

bodies is likely to have a number of positive effects.

3Democratising globalisation

making globalisation work for us



24/44

18 Dan Plesch

Politicians would get a far better understanding of the issues

and paperwork with which they deal.

At present, ministers, however capable, are

overwhelmed with material. The norm is that they turn

up at an international meeting, sign documents and fly

home. They may pay close attention to new material,

but there is a mass of material that officials tend to

present as routine that only few ministers become

familiar with and which often contain important issues.

If they were in the negotiations every day, they would

also start to build relationships with colleagues in

other countries. However, this positive change cannot

happen 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 ministers officeback in London. In this way, international institutions

have for decades barely let anything they do see the

light of day. There is much more media attention if

politicians are present at meetings. If these involve, say

fisheries ministers, the journalists and television

cameras will wait into the small hours of the morning

for an interview, but meetings of officials receive littleor no coverage. A politician in residence in New York,



25/44


Washington or Geneva would want to, and indeed have

to, give interviews. The secrecy of institutions will start

to crumble. There is only so long that a politician will

be able to maintain the line that everything is confiden-

tial, especially if an MP from another country such as

Canada or South Africa is giving a briefing down the

hall.

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 career

diplomats, whereas their US counterparts tend to be

trained in a business culture. The business culture isfar more assertive and result-focused than the more

conciliatory style of traditional diplomacy. Other

nations can be outmatched, not simply by US power,

but by the negotiating approach of its officials. If

countries that use the traditional European diplomatic

model sent elected representatives to reinforce their

diplomats, this would help address this weakness intheir representation.



26/44

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 a

hidden and mysterious process. Outside the diplomatic

service, there is a serious shortage of people with

experience in how the world of international politics

works.

It can be argued that party politicians cannot match

the professionalism of ambassadors trained in foreign

ministries. However, as in any Whitehall ministry

today, the officials would continue to provide a vital

support and implementation role to the policy direction

given by politicians.It can be argued that having many politicians away

from home could lead to difficulties with communica-

tion and policy co-ordination. Would there be

conflicting mandates between a Prime Minister and

directly elected representatives? How would we manage

the possibility that financial policy may be developed

by several different people: one at the European Union,one at the World Bank and one at the International

Monetary Fund?

Resolving this kind of problem is, however, part of

the normal business of government, but it tends to be

hidden from public view. For example, policy on

weapons exports involves the Foreign Office, Ministry of

Defence, Department of Trade and Industry and thePrime Minister, as well as on occasion, the Department



27/44


for International Development. The need to co-ordinate

policy across departments is the rule, rather than the

exception, and is one of the main functions of Cabinet

Committees.

In a future system of elected international represen-

tation, ministries of national governments would have

several ministers posted abroad. The Treasury would

have Ministers of State reporting to the Chancellor of

the Exchequer from the European Union, the World

Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund

and the World Bank. The Ministry of Defence would

have a Minister at NATO and the European Union. The

Foreign Office would have Ministers in the EU, at

NATO, the Organisation for Security and Cooperationin Europe and the UN. Other Ministries would also

have elected ministers stationed in the EU Council of

Ministers.



28/44

The United Nations

M

any member states, non-governmental organi-

sations and academics believe the United

Nations 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 opportunity

provided by the end of the Cold War to reform interna-

tional institutions, improve global security and achieve

a more equitable economic system. Five years later, at

the Millennium, the authors revisited these issues,

concluding that little progress had been made on anypart of the agenda and that a number of events had

reduced the authority of the UN, notably NATO action

in Kosovo.

Discussions have also focused on making the

Security Council and the General Assembly more

representative2. There have been suggestions for

including, as new permanent members of the SecurityCouncil, states with large populations such as India

4

Democratic representation ininternational institutions and the

European Union



29/44


and Brazil and incorporating the former imperial

powers, France and the UK, into a European Union

seat.

There is also an argument for states voting power in

the General Assembly to be proportionate to their

population3 and that this should form the basis of an

elected General Assembly. The idea of world elections

has been discussed ever since the UN was created4.

At that time, Labours 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 world

assembly I am willing to sit with any body, or any

party, or any nation to try to devise a franchise or a

constitution for a world assembly5

All of these proposals have at least one problem in

common: they can make no progress until there is a

consensus between all states to make change. As there

are considerable vested interests and rivalries, no

progress has occurred or is likely in the foreseeable

future. The UK and France are unlikely to give up their

power on the Security Council. The rivalry betweenIndia and Pakistan is an important obstacle to giving

India more prominence. Robin Cook, the first Foreign

Secretary in the Labour government, has expressed his

great regret at being unable to secure reform of the

Security Council during his time in office.

Discussion on the reform of the Security Council

continues in the permanent UN working group on TheQuestion of Equitable Representation on and increased



30/44

24 Dan Plesch

Representation in the Membership of the Security

Council and other Matters Relevant to the Security

Council. But no change has happened yet, or looks

possible for the future, on the basis of present

proposals.

Making the UN more democratic does not have to

wait for every country to agree. There is nothing in the

regulations of the UN, or indeed any other international

body, which determines how countries choose their

representatives. Countries could send political repre-

sentatives to join the career diplomats that represent

them at present. Once a few nations began this new

practice, 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 UNs

business. I have spent years reporting and lobbying on

military and disarmament issues at the UN, perhaps

the most secretive area of international politics. Most

documents that are in theory public are only seen by

officials. The role of myself and my colleagues was toget these documents into the light of day, and to brief

politicians in national capitals about what their own

ambassadors and those of other countries were saying.

The debates got much livelier and more pointed when

the politicians got involved.

If existing global trends continue, the UN will have

less and less authority; a few powerful states andglobal corporations will dominate. However, in five or



31/44


ten years the UN could be evolving into an elected

assembly. It would have renewed legitimacy and power

to tackle global problems. It would be far more difficult

for the international news media to ignore and

disparage 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 major

international institutions. We should look forward to a

world of elected assemblies thrashing out the issues in

Brussels, Geneva, Paris and New York.

There has been little recent debate on the democraticnature of NATO and the OSCE, but there has been an

active discussion about the democratic deficit in inter-

national financial institutions: the World Trade

Organisation, the World Bank and the International

Monetary Fund. It is argued that these bodies only act

on 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 are

democratic and they are implementing policies

designed to encourage free trade and free enterprise.

However, this argument has done nothing to reduce

the concerns of the anti-globalisation movement.

The response from these institutions to public protest

about their democratic deficit has been retrenchmentand cosmetic change rather than reform. In some



32/44

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 to

attract protest. The International Monetary Fund has

recognised public concerns to an extent. It has made

arrangements for occasional meetings of consultative

groups of members of parliament from various

countries, 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 forty

nations of the Euro-Atlantic region. However, the

central functions of these organisations are conducted

by officials, not elected representatives, drawn from theforeign and defence ministries of member states.

Military issues are so clouded in secrecy that

democratic control is hard to achieve. Few politicians

have military experience and since the decline of the

peace movements there are fewer people outside

government concerned with strategic issues. There has

been a growth of academic and NGO involvement in theissue of intervention, but this has generally been from

the humanitarian perspective, rather than from the

perspective of geo-political strategy.

The US Freedom of Information Act is responsible for

creating a more open culture in the US on security

issues than anywhere in Europe creates, with the

exception of Sweden. This is responsible for the hightechnical quality of US studies on strategic issues.



33/44


Applying US standards of freedom of information, in

the US-led alliances, should be the minimal acceptable

standard in NATO and amongst other US allies. If we

are to go along with US military policy, we should have

the same level of democratic control as in the US,

without jeopardising national security.

The European UnionThe nations and institutions of the EU are engaged in

the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is

creating a European Constitution. These negotiations

have centred on the issue of sovereignty. This sover-

eignty discussion consists of a debate between those

who favour a Europe of nation states and those whofavour creating a federal European state.

Whatever the result of this negotiation, it is essential

that the issue of democracy in Europe be given at least

as much attention as sovereignty. Improved democratic

representation throughout its institutions should be

the test of acceptability for the new European

Constitution, whatever new powers and politicalstructures are created.

The debate on the European Constitution engages

both those who favour the EU becoming a new Federal

State and those who prefer a Europe of nation states.

In either case, it is important that as many as possible

of the institutions of the EU should be elected,

including its overseas representation. The EU should



34/44

28 Dan Plesch

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

tative democracy.

The European Constitution should create institutions

where national representatives to all its institutions are

elected, and the EU should elect some positions as a

whole. We should create an EU where all the commis-

sioners are directly elected by national populations,

rather than nominated by the Prime Minister of the

country concerned. The Council of Ministers consists of

representatives of each member state and is broken

down into many committees covering different areas,

such as the environment and health. At present,

officials conduct the day-to-day work with ministers

arriving only for key meetings. Democracy would bebetter served if there were elected representatives

present all the time, so that the Council of Ministers

would actually be made up of ministers on a day-to-

day basis and not just at summit time. A newly

democratic Commission and Council would work with

the proposed elected EU President. These internal

constitutional issues are being addressed more fully inCharter88s Five Democratic Tests for Europe.

The discussions of how the EU engages the world as

a whole have, so far, centred on military issues and on

the EUs development partnerships in several regions of

the world. There has been little attention paid to the

question of how the people of the EU are represented

in the wider world. It is important to set the reforms wewant for the EU in the context of the reforms we want



35/44


at home, and in the governance of the world as a

whole. It is essential that ideas for enhanced democ-

racy at the global level flow through the EU and are

neither diverted nor blocked by the changes made in

Brussels.

Another reason, for considering how Europe relates

to the wider world, is that changes within the EU may

have negative consequences for the way the EU

operates on the world stage. For example, one result of

creating a federal state is that nations would have

reduced representation internationally. It has been

argued that France and the UK should give up their

seats on the Security Council in favour of one EU

representative. Applying this argument to the other EUcountries would mean that none would lose their

representation at the UN in favour of an EU represen-

tative. If one EU representative to the UN were ever to

happen, the Union should elect this representative as a

whole.

Those who argue for a common EU position in foreign

and military affairs need to think more clearly aboutthe way the present Europe of nation states is repre-

sented abroad. It is not satisfactory that national

representation should wither away until it is all vested

in a single EU diplomat representing an EU President.

At present, the EU is obliged to act as group in all

international bodies including NATO and the UN,

however this was not the case with Iraq. EU memberstates informed by the Commission and led by the



36/44

30 Dan Plesch

troika of present, past and future EU Presidencies

develop a collective view that is then carried forward.

It is well known that there is an informal arrangement

that when a member state has a particular interest, for

example France and the UKs nuclear weapons, then

their views are deferred when reaching collective

decisions. More importantly, member states regional

interests and colonial histories give the EU a global

reach that would be greatly weakened if member states

no longer had international representation.

EU member states are most unlikely to give up their

national representation abroad. Whatever the view

might be in old established states such as the UK or

the Netherlands, it is inconceivable that nations suchas Croatia, in the first flush of national pride, would

agree to cease to be represented abroad.

The importance of national ambassadors will decline

as the power of the centralised EU institutions

continues to grow. As a result, even if they are retained

in present form, these national ambassadors may

become merely ceremonial. Rather than see theserepresentatives dwindle into insignificance, we should

take the opportunity to revitalise their role.

The EU should take the lead in helping create a new

era of global democracy. Encouraging member states to

send elected representatives too, can also do this. In a

few years time the EU should be sending a delegation

of 25 directly elected representatives to each of themajor global institutions. Such a democratically elected



37/44


delegation would act as a co-ordinated group much as

it does at present. It would grow beyond being a

delegation of officials to being a mature and self-confi-

dent political group able to speak for and to its

citizens. Such a delegation would do a great deal to

transform the climate in all the global bodies and help

encourage other nations to also elect their representa-

tives. It would also help set an example, encouraging

non-democratic states to become democratic, as it

would reinforce democracy as the norm.

This form of overseas representation could fit into

most 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 choose

is decided by them, and not at the EU level, the

election of overseas representatives could be introduced

separately to the agreement of the EU constitution.

Without such reforms, the Union will fall more and

more into the hands of a self-serving elite. European

politics could also see extremist parties benefiting frompublic revulsion at the collusion of the mainstream

parties in robbing the people of their rights. A key test

for whatever new institutions are created is that they

should be elected.



38/44

The opportunities to have our views expressed in

international affairs are few and far between.

Electing representatives to international institu-

tions would allow us to apply the power of democracy

much more directly at the international level.Democratising international institutions would be a

radical transformation of the international system.

Although all these changes may be seen as over-

dramatic, democracy must keep up with globalisation

or it will continue to be overrun by corporate power

and 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 evolution

of representative democracy to parallel the emergence

of the global village. One parallel may be drawn from

the way the US Constitution evolved; originally, state

representatives indirectly elected the US Senate. The

growth of the country and the development of aneducated and engaged population required that the

5Conclusion



39/44


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-length

from international institutions; they must be democrat-

ically accountable if we are going to entrust them with

so much power over our lives. It is not acceptable that

our system of democracy remains unchanged local

and national elected representatives and appointed

international diplomats when the process of globali-

sation is changing politics the world over. If we are

going to influence globalisation, we must be able to

have democratic control over international decision-

making.

Electing officials to international institutions isespecially important due to the growing crisis over US

unilateralism in international affairs and the fact that

so many issues facing us today are on a global level. It

is crucial that international institutions are democrati-

cally strengthened, and not torn down by the

self-interests of a few powerful nation-states. Applying

democratic principles to international institutions isthe only reform that will make them accountable to the

worlds people. By electing representatives to these

institutions, we can begin creating a democratic global

society.



40/44

34 Dan Plesch

References

1 See www.un.org/law/icc/

2 See http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/reform.htm

3 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). Labours Big Three. Bodley

Head. p.234



41/44

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 national

identity 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

Charter88

18a Victoria Park Square

London

E2 9PB

Tel. 020 8880 6088

www.charter88.org.uk



42/44

General elections are won and lost on the back of a few

thousand votes in about 100 marginal constituencies.

The House of Commons does the Government's bidding

rather 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 and

middle class.

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

We need politicians we can trust.

We need to know whats going on.

We need rights that cant 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 add

your name to ours below.




43/44



44/44


Taming Globalisation: Upgrading Democracy for the 21st Century

Documents

Transcript of Taming Globalisation: Upgrading Democracy for the 21st Century