TOWARDS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE WORLD PARLIAMENT PROPOSALS

By Troy Davis, President/CEO, the World Citizen Foundation
edited by Joyce Mitchell

Purpose of this paper

The purpose of this paper is to explore how a conceptual framework can be created to evaluate the concepts of a global democratic institution directly or indirectly representing the people of the world.  It is to sketch scenarios and present trails for further exploration, as well as guidelines for evaluation founded on some basic design principles.  It is our hope that this paper will stimulate comment and discussions.

Reforming the global political architecture

After a lull of about 50 years, proposals for global bodies representing the people are, once again, the more frequent subject of open discussion and action (the first People's World Constitutional Convention was held in December 1950 in Geneva.)  These varied approaches to involve the people directly in the decision-making that affects their lives are meant to provide an independent and countervailing voice to the dozens of global inter-governmental institutions existing today; institutions that are created by and used as tools of the executive branches of their constituent governments.¹

Basic to reforming the global political architecture is the realization of such a global decision-making body or World Parliament (WP.)  While considerable attention has been and is being given to the need to reform the global financial architecture, the phrase "global political architecture" has received little attention.  It is the writer's position that the political architecture is fundamental and that the financial architecture should derive from it, rather than the reverse.

Not withstanding the obvious political (end of the Cold War, beginning of a War on Terrorism,) economic (globalization,) and technological (information, agricultural and industrial technologies) changes, there are striking similarities between the present and the early 1950's.  After 40 years of relative obscurity, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 served as catalyst to a greater awareness, at both the grassroots and official levels of society, of the need for democracy and transparency in political institutions.

Many politicians, including heads of state and their foreign ministers, as well as journalists and activists have expressed their support for the concept of world democracy or of a world parliament.  They join the many former or retired politicians who have endorsed these concepts.²  This is a net contrast to the period from the 60's to the end of 80's when references to supranational bodies were rarely heard from those in power.

The need for a global body representing the people

At the grassroots level, the great dissatisfaction with the present state of globalization (as expressed in virulent protests in Seattle, Washington, Prague, Melbourne, Davos, Québec and in other meetings like the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre) is evident, and may be only the tip of the iceberg.  This dissatisfaction cannot be swept aside – as even mainstream commentators and business media have begun to recognize.³

To grapple with the complex issues of globalization, to develop and implement the required checks and balances, and to provide a voice for the unheard there is an apparent need for at least one major global body that can claim legitimate representation of the peoples of the world.  All of the existing global bodies are based on the exclusive principle of national sovereignty rather than the inclusive one of human sovereignty, or the sovereignty of the individual.  While most states recognize in their constitution ⁴ the ultimate sovereignty of the people, in practice, they impose decisions which are often contrary to that principle.

While a number of civil society organizations are attempting to develop some form of a global democratic institution, the proposed forms have lacked clarity of structure.  Rarely has there been a form suggested demonstrating intellectual rigor; rather, the proposals have been emotional appeals for democratic global representation, with designs mostly based on existing frameworks rather than basic principles.  Some organizations contemplate an assembly, popularly elected or parliamentary, parallel to the UN General Assembly and operating within the UN framework.

Proposals for basic design principles

The following are a set of principles of design that may seem obvious, but need to be stated.  One simple example is that only peaceful means will be used to establish a WP. Our basic principles must attempt to encompass all of human behavior and to cover potential future scenarios.

We would want to avoid, and would disavow, any violent actions to be undertaken under the pretext of establishing a WP, such as those from an apparently lone terrorist, any terrorist groups, or any nation or group of nations seeking global hegemony. 

Following are the basic principles we suggest (which play the same role for us as fundamental axioms do in mathematics) and believe are requirements in order to design sustainable and legitimate global bodies representing the people:

1.  Ultimate political sovereignty resides in the people (which means that any public sovereignty is derived from the sovereignty of the people, and therefore public bodies must yield if the people decide on institutional changes.)

2. The collective sovereignty of the people must be expressed through direct or representative democracy (the degree or extent of direct vs. representative depends on the scale of the body and the mix of checks and balances.)

3.  The rule of law must be implemented as developed and approved (as opposed to the rule by specific individuals such as monarchs or dictators; this prevents arbitrariness and puts the rule of law above special interests.)

4.  Implementation of the Subsidiarity Principle. (This means that decisions are taken at a local level, and concomitantly that the World Parliament addresses only global problems.  This principle is a constitutional principle of the European Union and is a refinement of a principle of federalism.  The local levels will be defined and agreed to as the WP develops.)

5.  The transparency principle: complete institutional and procedural transparency is needed, as this is the only way to create the necessary trust and to prevent corruption. (minutes of all meetings posted on a web site, regular public notifications of meetings, committees, agendas, conflicts, issues, etc.)

6.  Use of peaceful means to build such an entity (see previous comment.)

7.  Non-discrimination (according to article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.).

8.  Universal participation (inclusivity), creating a sense of ownership by the people (no person or persons should be excluded from participation or knowledge of proceedings.)

The origin of every single one of these principles is derived from the philosophical and pragmatic recognition that in today's world, only a global body that is respected and trusted by the people will have the necessary moral authority to enforce its decisions.  In order to earn the trust and participation of the world's people, each of the above eight (8) principles must be implemented. 

Answer to a common objection

One of the most common arguments against global bodies with the authority to make law is their potential to become tyrannical.  This argument ignores both historical and technological changes, as well as the paradigm shift that comes from ascent to the global level, superceding the traditional Westphalian nation-state system.

War, in the name of self-protection, is a logical and natural consequence of the absolute sovereignty of nations.  The consequences of the continued existence of war as a real political option has resulted in a society that passively accepts the militaristic mindset- one which now frames or looms over much discourse on global matters.  As fish that do not realize that they live in water, we do not realize that most global issues are decided against the backdrop of a system that has corrupted our points of view.  In a sense, the strangle hold that the Westphalian system has on our minds is a poison which we can only exorcise by a conscious effort to escape from its framework.

Rather, we accept that most states need and maintain armies, spy systems, a culture of secret, the ability to impose martial law, to execute people for high treason, to suspend civil rights etc.  In short, the natural consequence of the classical nation-state framework is a deep and systematic curtailment of freedom, both actual and potential or, in the worst-case scenario:  the emergence of a strong man (or group,) of dictatorships, and of hegemony-seeking nations, all of which are not uncommon in this beginning of the 21^st century, and all of which lay the groundwork for a renewed world-wide power struggle. 

A WP is unlikely to develop world tyranny.  Historical progress has seen the slow extension of the democratic and constitutional rule of law from smaller to larger units, and to many nations.  Unfortunately, many of these same states have not accepted like principles to govern their external relations.  But citizens that have enjoyed the resulting liberties are less likely to accept a loss of them, as a peaceful transition is made to a World Citizenry defined as an addition to local and national citizenships, rather than as a replacement. 

The extrapolation of traditional nationalist thinking into supranational space is greatly responsible for these fears of world tyranny.  Yet, there are two strong arguments against it, one based on the inherent property of a global system, incorporating the Basic Eight Principles; the other on the emergence of new communications technologies that hinder authoritarianism.  (Of course, this does not exonerate us from designing a system with strong checks and balances, as we must).

Apart from the inherent complexities and the fact that democracy on a large scale is still in its infancy, the biggest barrier to the growth of just and efficient democracies is the contradiction between the two paradigms ruling domestic and international politics.  In the first, we have the rule of law, anchored by a constitution and a system of separation of powers, with a legislature chosen by the people.  In the second, we use the same outdated war-based and diplomatic system that the Kings of Ur and Lagash inaugurated 5000 years ago in Sumer (Mesopotamia).

We need to learn to use the paradigm of the democratic rule to law on a global scale - world democracy - and the new technologies to build a robust and trusted global political system.  (Robust is used here as it is used in the software industry, to describe a program that is fault-tolerant and does not "crash" easily.)  We can take advantage of these to design a global body so that it uses the properties of a people-empowering paradigm to reach our goal of global peace and prosperity.

Global risks have the potential to be greatly minimized if we replace the present system of international decision-making by the executive branches of national governments by one based on decisions made by legislative bodies.  Since it would be awkward, if not impossible, to have 200 parliaments decide independently and then meet, compare decisions, try to reconcile etc., the logical conclusion is that there must a global parliament to set the broad framework and address only global issues.

A WP is the best insurance against global crises, as it can provide a permanent forum for discussion of common problems, instead of today's shuttle diplomacy. The representatives of the richly varied cultures of our global society will be chosen by the world's citizens, and not by their national governments.  They will be able to form a community themselves, and in regular interpersonal contact, lead the way for us to a world that celebrates this variety; a world of peace, freedom and justice.

A World Parliament, which can be defined as a global institutional forum for permanent political dialogue, will be a precious tool in our toolbox to promote a Dialogue of Civilisations.  The scenario of a global Clash of Civilisations is unfortunately not remote and it can only fought through a conscious effort at expanding the political dialogue between cultures.  It is a myth that Muslim leaders would never agree to such a proposal, as Prince Hassan of Jordan showed when he called for a World Cultural Parliament in London "to help the global fight against terrorism" (BBC, 25 October 2001). 

A World Parliament is likely to generate true enthusiasm among millions of people, and become the most closely watched and most followed body on the planet.  The mere launch of the project is likely to do what the proponents of the WTO claim for themselves when they say that the launch of a new trade round will boost flagging economic confidence. This claim makes little sense if one thinks of the basic confidence-sapping problem: global terrorism.  A world parliament, by providing a neutral place for dialogue and by being able to listen to grievances of all the citizens of the world, will do more to promote global confidence than a new WTO-led trade round which is fiercely contested by most developing countries and by millions of people in the North.

The premises that led to the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court are the same arguments that lead us to say we need to create a World Parliament as a permanent dialogue forum to replace costly and more fallible ad hoc international negotiations.  In computer-speak, a WP would create an "always-on" broadband connection, rather than the present diplomacy that is like a dialup modem.  To succeed, the WP must become the most trusted human political institution in history, so that its decisions are respected through the strength of an almost irresistible force of global public opinion.

Enforcement: by military force or moral force?

Political neo-realists will object that without physical enforcement, the value of a WP will be irrelevant.  This position ignores the developments of technology that has reversed the old rules of the game.  In days gone by, governments could rule in secret and there was little organized transnational civil society.  Most national political action was conducted, by and large, in secret, and the gun was still the mightiest sound on the international scene.

Recent events, part of a positive "civic globalization" indicate that the power of public opinion is greater than ever, and that global civil society is a force to be reckoned with.  A graphic example is $40 million spent by the US government to help the opponents of Milosevic in peaceful elections, vs. the $20 billion spent on the war in Kosovo.  The former terminated Milosevic's reign in a few weeks while a war that killed thousands left him bloodied but unbowed.  It is even possible that the Kosovo war could have been totally avoided if the West had supported civic opposition during the daily demonstrations in Serbia that started at the end of 1996 and that continued, even in the face of constant harassment by the Milosevic regime, for several months.

Globalization and technology serve to empower ordinary people, activists, and also potential terrorists.  While it is true that moral force today may not sway all regimes, it is telling how the Russian government was severely criticized for its lack of sensitivity and its opaqueness when the nuclear submarine Irkutsk sank in August of 2000.  The protests of indignant mothers and other citizens did more to topple the Russian military from their traditional pedestal than any other event since its creation.  Further examples of recent global civil society power are the international treaties banning landmines and on the permanent International Criminal Court.

But even these international treaties are the result of diplomatic conferences and backroom negotiations.  There is no global institution directly speaking for the people, where treaties can be negotiated by a transparent process in which the entire world participates via its representatives.

In practice, therefore, the greatest value of a WP is to create a legislative framework, accountable to the citizens of the world for all global decisions, including those of other global bodies.  It is difficult to imagine that the President of the World Bank or the Director-General of the WTO would refuse an invitation by the WP to address its members and answer questions from the world parliamentarians.  The pressure of global public opinion relayed by modern technologies would make a refusal highly unlikely.

Indicators of evaluation for WP proposals

Before creating specific evaluation criteria, it is useful to ask ourselves basic questions and see if we can answer them using common political sense:

1. What are the advantages of a WP compared to the present world situation?

A WP is the embodiment of a permanent "deep dialogue"⁵.  It is the institutionalization of that political dialogue.  Democracy is founded on the "talk" paradigm rather than the "fight" paradigm.  We believe that most people will agree that differences and issues can best be dealt with through honest dialogue.  Dialogue takes time and profound dialogue requires more time.  By facilitating a permanent dialogue of men and women from all cultures and language groups, we believe that they can and will arrive at intelligent, fair, and practical solutions to global problems.  The current method, via international diplomacy, is not bringing us the desired results of peace and justice.  Too many voices have been and continue to be marginalized, excluding their input into decisions that deeply affect the fabric of their lives. 

In the end, we urge prudence and evaluation of each specific idea. We need to create an intellectually rigorous framework for discussion, to push for as broad a debate as possible, and to evaluate all proposals employing a "grid" of criteria upon which we could agree beforehand.  Such a debate would respond to the demands of anti-globalization protesters to democratize supranational decision-making.  Many national governments frequently use the rhetoric of democracy as a defining value (it was mentioned 15 times in the final declaration of Québec City of 22 April 2001.)⁷  Multi-nationals share the same rhetoric (see the latest report of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.)⁸   The debate we recommend is a practical way to build a bridge between the Davos and the Porto Alegre crowds, between business and labor, between rich and poor countries and populations, and to shift from a dialogue of the deaf to one of hope.

Footnotes

¹ e.g.  UN organizations, the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the OECD etc.

² e.g.  Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, "You need a global and democratic system of political decision making" or Mikhail Gorbachev:  "On today's agenda is not just a union of democratic states, but also a democratically organized world community.  For more, see World Citizen Foundation web site.

³ Jerry Useem, There's Something Happening Here, Fortune magazine, vol. 141, no 10, 15 May 2000.  "Decision-making is migrating to the international level, effectively stripping nation-states of some of their sovereignty. That in itself may not be a bad thing, but unlike national governments, these global institutions aren't bound by a broader system of checks and balances. In the meantime, there is literally no forum where representatives for workers, communities, human rights, or the environment can make their case at the global level with any hope of being heard. Except, of course, the streets." http://library.northernlight.com/LH20000505020000790.html?cb=13&sc=0#doc

⁴ Study of countries' constitutions by World Citizen Foundation, (see web site).

⁵ Concept developed by Professor Ashok Gangadean, founder of the Deep Dialogue Institute at Haverford University, Haverford, PA, USA.

⁶ See article on the European Parliament, The Economist (April 2001), which points out that the fact that the European Parliament operates through translators, and that jokes are not allowed, formalizes it and distances it from citizens.

⁷ see http://www.americascanada.org/eventsummit/declarations/menu-e.asp

⁸ see http://www.wbscd.org

Back to top

Designed by  AnyaDavis.com