Jan Aart Scholte

Building global democracy?: civil society and accountable global governance

The scale, effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance lag far behind the worlds needs. This path-breaking book examines how far civil society involvement provides an answer to these problems. Does civil society make global governance more democratic? Have citizen action groups raised the accountability of global bodies that deal with challenges such as climate change, financial crises, conflict, disease and inequality? What circumstances have promoted (or blocked) civil society efforts to make global governance institutions more democratically accountable? What could improve these outcomes in the future? The authors base their argument on studies of thirteen global institutions, including the UN, G8, WTO, ICANN and IMF. Specialists from around the world critically assess what has and has not worked in efforts to make global bodies answer to publics as well as states. Combining intellectual depth and political relevance, Building Global Democracy? will appeal to students, researchers, activists and policymakers.

The geography of collective identities in a globalizing world

Abstract One of the many key questions in the political economy of globalization concerns the implications of this broad trend for forms of collective identity and the associated shapes and strengths of communities in the contemporary world system. Globalization ‐ conceived here in a distinctly geographical sense as the rise of supraterritoriality ‐ has contributed to a general shift over recent decades away from a situation thoroughly dominated by national identities. Globalization has helped to reinvigorate or newly invent a host of substate localisms as well as a diverse array of transborder solidarities. Concurrently, recent moves away from territori‐alist geography have in other respects reproduced the nationality principle and have also prompted a number of nationalist reactions. These different and often contradictory tendencies have resulted in widespread fragmentation of identities in the world political economy of the late twentieth century. The article concludes with some (admittedly problemati...

The WTO and Civil Society

In line with a general trend in contemporary global governance, the World Trade Organization has been developing increased links with civil society groups. If conducted well, these contacts can make important contributions towards greater effectiveness and democracy in the global trade regime. If handled poorly, however, the relations can undermine policy and undercut democracy. Already the WTO and civic associations have taken notable steps to increase the quantity and quality of their mutual exchanges. Yet major resource constraints and deeper structural impediments have to date prevented a fuller development of this dialogue.

Civil society and legitimation of global governance

Along with the general intensified globalisation of social relations in contemporary history has come an unprecedented expansion of regulatory apparatuses that cover planetary jurisdictions and constituencies. On the whole, however, this global governance remains weak relative to pressing current needs for global public policy. Shortfalls in moral standing, legal foundations, material delivery, democratic credentials and charismatic leadership have together generated large legitimacy deficits in existing global regimes. This fragile overall legitimacy has in turn constituted a major obstacle to achieving the substantial further growth of global-scale regulation that is required to secure decent human lives for all in a more global world. Insufficient capacities for global governance and insufficient legitimacy of global governance are thus coupled in damaging mutual reinforcement. This paper argues that – although there are of course considerable variations across different global governance institutions and different civil society initiatives – the general picture has been one of but partially realised potentials of legitimacy promotion. Like the tip of the proverbial iceberg, civil society activities concerning global regulation have so far made visible only a fraction of the total mass of possibilities. Hence prescriptions for the future centre on ‘more’ and ‘better’. Regarding more quantity, urgently required greater positive legitimation of global governance can be promoted with more civil society engagement, covering more regulatory institutions and extending through more stages of the policy process. Regarding better quality, to have greater positive legitimation effects civil society relations with global governance generally need to be more inclusive, more competent, more coordinated, and more accountable. Both sides to the interchange – civil society associations on the one hand and global regulatory bodies on the other – can take a range of measures to further these ends.Abstract This article assesses in what ways and to what degrees civil society activities have advanced the legitimacy of global governance institutions. It is argued that these citizen initiatives have often enhanced the democratic, legal, moral and technical standing of regulatory agencies with planetary constituencies and jurisdictions. However, these benefits do not flow automatically from civil society mobilizations and on the whole are much less extensive than they could be. With a view to greater realization of the potential contributions to legitimacy, the article elaborates recommendations for more, more inclusive, more competent, more coordinated, and more accountable engagement of global governance by civil society organizations.

Civil society and global finance

Part One: General Issues Part Two: Regional Experiences Part Three: Perspectives from Multilateral Institutions Part Four: Perspectives from Civil Society Sectors Part Five: Looking Ahead

Towards greater legitimacy in global governance

A more global world, such as has emerged in recent history, requires larger and more effective global governance, that is, rules and accompanying regulatory processes that apply to jurisdictions and constituencies of a planetary scale. Like any other domain of social life (whether a locality, a country or a region), global spaces need governance arrangements to bring order, sustainability and possibilities of deliberated and directed change. True, much regulation of global issues can and does transpire through regional, national and local institutions. Moreover, global governance need not – and for reasons of cultural diversity and democracy arguably should not – take the form of a planetary sovereign. That said, effective regulation of global affairs does require a significant element of global apparatuses. Without adequate transplanetary regimes, positive potentials of contemporary globalization can go unrealized and negative prospects can go unchecked. The stakes in building global governance are very high. For instance, effective global regulation of finance could harness immense stocks of capital to the betterment of humanity in general and of disadvantaged circles in particular. On the other hand, ineffective global financial regulation would, as happens at present, yield chronic instability and grossly inequitable distributions of benefits. Similarly, effective global governance of migration could maximize cultural and economic gains for sending and receiving locales alike. However, deficient transplanetary regimes in this issue-area would, as currently, heighten insecurities for all parties. In addition, effective global governance could bolster disarmament, disease control and ecological integrity; yet flawed transplanetary regulation in these matters would, as now, preside over militarization, epidemics and environmental degradation.

Reinventing global democracy

How can democracy be suitably formulated in face of the more global character of contemporary society? Modern ideas and practices of ‘people’s rule’ (whether in a statist or a cosmopolitan mode) fall short as frameworks for global democracy. Statist approaches to global democracy have a host of behavioural, institutional, historical and cultural problems. Modern cosmopolitan approaches do better in addressing contemporary social changes, but are deficient in terms of their globalist tendencies, often oversimplified notions of political identity, limited cultural reflexivity, usually tame responses to resource inequalities and anthropocentrism. To address these shortcomings one might explore an alternative of ‘postmodern global democracies’ built around principles of transscalarity, plural solidarities, transculturality, egalitarian distribution and more ecologically framed ideas of political rights and duties.

Global governance, accountability and civil society

As an initial step in exploring the relationship between civil society and accountability in global governance it is important to clarify the core terms. Each of the principal elements in this equation is subject to multiple and often conflicting interpretations. The point of this opening chapter is not to resolve these theoretical and political disputes with definitive definitions. Such an aim is neither achievable nor – from the perspective of creative democratic debate – desirable. Hence the following discussion only sketches broad conceptions and concerns in order to provide a starting framework of analysis for the subsequent case studies. Individual authors will, in those chapters, elaborate their particular understandings of the general issues in relation to specific global governance arrangements. The present chapter has three parts that successively address the three central concepts in this study. The first part identifies ‘global governance’ as a complex of rules and regulatory institutions that apply to transplanetary jurisdictions and constituencies . In line with globalisation as a major general trend of contemporary history, global governance has grown to unprecedented proportions and significance in recent decades. The second part of the chapter discusses ‘accountability’ in terms of processes whereby an actor answers for its conduct to those whom it affects . Shortfalls of accountability (especially democratic accountability) in respect of global governance agencies constitute a major challenge to the delivery of effective and legitimate public policy. The third part of the chapter introduces ‘civil society’ as a political arena where associations of citizens seek, from outside political parties, to shape societal rules . The present enquiry considers the ways and extents that civil society activities can contribute to greater accountability in global governance.

Reconstructing Contemporary Democracy

Democratic practice varies historically, and transformations of the societal context require accompanying reconstructions of democracy if “rule by the people” is to remain meaningful. Contemporary society is witnessing particularly profound changes in underlying structures of space, governance, and identity. Fundamental reconsideration of democracy is therefore also needed. This article first develops a generic understanding of democracy; next elaborates on currently unfolding transformations of geography, regime, and community; and then develops a five-faceted reconstruction of democracy to meet these changed circumstances. This prescription entails: (1) reconceptualizing democracy, shifting away from obsolete assumptions of territorialist space, statist regulation, and nationalist identity; (2) refashioning civic education to empower all citizens to act in this new situation; (3) building effective institutional mechanisms of public accountability in respect of an emergent polycentric mode of governance; (4) effecting progressive structural redistributions of resources and power in order that all stakeholders in contemporary public policy issues have more equal opportunities of political participation; and (5) nurturing positive practices of intercultural recognition, communication, and negotiation.

A More Inclusive Global Governance? The IMF and Civil Society in Africa

Abstract Does engagement with civil society generate more inclusive global governance? This article examines that question in the context of relations between the International Monetary Fund and civil society organizations in six countries of sub-Saharan Africa. IMF exchanges with CSOs in this region have indeed brought some new voices into global governance. However, the overall scale and depth of these connections has remained modest. Moreover, such engagement as has developed has generally favored geographically, socioeconomically, and culturally privileged constituencies. These limitations to, and hierarchies of, access and influence in IMF-CSO relations have resulted from a combination of: personal qualities of the individuals involved, institutional attributes of both the IMF and CSOs, and deeper structures of contemporary global politics. Attention to these various circumstances could yield greater inclusion.