Just as we need a European Constitution and the constitutional rule of law in Europe, we need a World Constitution and the constitutional rule of law at the world level.  The final result will most probably look very different, but the same reasons apply.  Substituting "world" for "Europe" makes your article a manifesto for a world constitution.

Your article raises the debate beyond the knee-jerk reactions which some academics have when global democracy is evoked, and is a logical extension of others you have written about the need for a global rules-based framework, (which incidentally would be in America's selfish economic interests as well).

A constitution forces people to think about the issues and to openly express their assumptions.  Therefore, the most fundamental value of your article is to contribute to launching a true public dialogue.

But why a constitution anyway?  Because a constitution reinforces democracy (at least it should) and clarifies the rules of the game. Clear rules in society are necessary because otherwise only the rich and powerful benefit from the lack of transparency, and corruption spreads. In the end, even the rich and powerful suffer as discontent spreads. And in a world where technology empowers the people more and more, they simply do not accept to be treated as subjects anymore.

Both the necessary public discussions to create a new constitution and the existence of a constitution elevate the quality of the debate about the kind of world we want to live in, and how to manage the tremendous changes which globalization accelerates.

But for the process to work, it has to follow certain basic rules. The most fundamental one is that elaborating a new rules-based framework for either Europe or the world must be done with the widest public consultation.  Elaborating a constitution must be done together with the people – otherwise it will not be accepted – whatever its technical merits.  Democracy, whether European Democracy or World Democracy, cannot be built without a democratic debate.  Most of the problems of building Europe (and of globalization) are due to the present arrogant "top-down" process.

The very same arguments can be made at the world level.  The protests in Seattle, Davos, Washington, Melbourne, Prague etc. are only one sign of the profound disconnect which large segments of the world population feel about economic globalization.

But the debate about globalization has to grow up beyond these initial protests.  A discussion about a world constitution would be a splendid way to do just that.  It would also answer those who critique Mike Moore, Director of the WTO, who is reported to have said that the WTO is writing a constitution for the world.

But this WTO-centric "world constitution" is built on the principles of commerce rather than, like any self-respecting modern constitution should be, on the principle of democracy.

A world constitution is necessary to define a World Democracy just as a European constitution is necessary to define a European democracy.  To do either, it is vital to have the broadest possible public debate about the pros and cons, the principles and the potential roadmap to creating new supra-national democracies.

Stimulating such a debate is the goal of the Global Campaign for World Democracy which was launched last year and is based on a simple statement of goals and design principles.  These principles were signed by hundreds of people and organizations from all around the world – rich and poor, Christians and Muslims, former heads of state, parliamentarians, scientists, CEOs and professionals, workers and trade unionists etc.

t is telling that you included all those principles in your draft, starting with democracy and the rule of law, as we did (with the exception that we made some principles explicit which in your draft are implicit, such as non-discrimination and the exclusive use of peaceful means).  I hope other papers will continue this vital discussion for our future.

Sincerely yours,