Mark Dick and Tony Emerson discussed this important question regarding global governance in the Joy in Enough talk on Wednesday 15 March 2023 at 7pm
Mark Dick writes (based on A World Parliament by Jo Leinen and Andreas Bummel): - Why the need for a World Parliament? ……..Because it is time to represent all of humanity in decision making. Presently we, the peoples, have no say at a global level.
What would it look like? A directly elected second (first!) chamber at the UN? Central decision makers must be held accountable. A world parliament would aid the development of a planetary consciousness, and ideological voting-blocks would form to discuss shared ideas and eventually global political parties would emerge, to have open discussion on globalisation, climate change etc.
A practical idea? Visionary? Not workable? Could a kind of global citizens assembly ever be workable?
Questions from Tony
Can you briefly outline how democracy has evolves through the ages?
Assembly Democracy — ancient Athens -spoken word
Electoral Democracy — 1776 - 1945 - written word
Monitory Democracy (John Keane) - post-1945 digital mass communication
Global Democracy? assemblies, elections and more monitoring and citizen engagement
What are the political obstacles that need to be overcome?
Who governs the world, and how? Well global governance is messy and complicated. It can be divided into (1) state centred governance, (2) multi-stakeholder governance and (3) private governance.
Firstly, International organisations like the United Nations are not fully democratic (one state, one vote with no population weighing); the World Bank and IMF are more one dollar, one vote (US holds a veto) and operate unfair loan conditionalities to poorer nations; the G7 and G20 “Clubs of Governments” are undemocratic and operate behind closed doors; and even more secretive are trans-governmental networks such as Financial Stability Board FSB and International Competition Network ICN.
Secondly, multi-stakeholder governance includes government officials, NGOs and trans-national business organisations but who elected them, whom do they represent – shareholder/corporate rule? Multi-stakeholder networks dealt badly with COVID through COVAX.
Thirdly, private governance is the most undemocratic governance of all : Big Finance, Big Oil, Big Pharma. There is no regulation of banking in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) or internet domain name access in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the problems of the Investor State Dispute System (ISDS) demonstrate how undemocratic our world is. Corporate courts and private tribunals seem to be necessary to enforce global business law for the elite but global human rights law has no such governance. Far better to have a global democracy overseeing all global governance.
A federation is one political unit with subsidiarity of devolved powers to regions (multi-level governance), but with two central chambers one to represent the states/regions and one to represent individual citizens. A confederation is a union of equal sovereign states. The EU is a hybrid model. Thirty countries (mostly the larger ones) are federations (40% of world population) because federations are excellent for large complex societies (giving equal status to all citizens). Unfortunately, the UN is a weak confederation of sovereign states with no representation for individuals. Federation could improve global governance and world politics by transferring power both up and down to aid redistribution and tackling climate change.
Why have we not stopped the global climate destabilising already?
Because climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol do not work! A federal global democratic government could bring about a reduction in fossil fuels, develop green alternatives and make real climate justice.
So far international institutions in our current system have been dangerously ineffective in the face of the scale of the global climate crisis. The harm-producers of the Global North, causing such catastrophic negative externalities need to be brought under a global justice system. The current international COP events allow nation state polluters to set unambitious emission targets or simply withdraw from agreements – ‘naming and shaming’ is not enough. Above all national parliaments there should be a world parliament – “no emissions, without permissions”.
Thirty years have been wasted. Voluntary reduction in fossil fuels by some has reduced demand globally, lead to cheaper fuel and then more use and pollution by others. Oil reserves are huge, and potentially worth a lot of money, leading to the “prisoner’s dilemma” for fossil fuel companies to cash in and literally or metaphorically build fortresses on higher ground to avoid sea level rise (cf “The Wall” by John Lanchester or “Nomad Century” by Gaia Vince). Clean renewable energies have rapidly come down in price but fossil fuels still supply 85% of the world’s energy needs and at the current rate it will 20-25 years to replace them completely (and the fossil fuel giants have such power that they are able to buy political favour and slow down change).
Those who want to delay change argue that carbon taxes harm the poor most and the Global North (whose prosperity has been built on coal and oil) does not have the right to deny the industrial revolution benefits to others. But in a global democratic system “loss and damage” would become real as a world parliament, a global tax system and global law and justice would ensure proper reparations!
Why have poverty and inequality soared since the 1980s?
In the international system it is impossible to close tax havens, stop transfer mis-pricing, and tax corporations. International development and the SDGs don’t reduce poverty. A democratic global government could bring more justice and equality.
Today, half the world’s population live on less than $5.50 per day and just 26 of the world’s richest individuals own more than this 50% of humanity combined (3.3 billion people). The problem is that the economy today operates at a global level while the political regulation operates at a national level. Currently there is no democratic method to change the system. When most countries tax systems were set up to aid redistribution during 1930s - 1960s cross-border economic activity was relatively low. Tax systems have not be able to adapt to globalisation post 1980 and corporate tax rates have become a race to the bottom reducing government coffers for redistribution everywhere.
Two thirds of world trade is carried out by 100,000 trans-national corporations - networks of separate (yet connected) units in each country of operation. Transfer mis-pricing is the method these units use to interact their business inside the trans-national corporation to avoid tax. Governments lose $138 billion to tax havens this way. Global democracy could solve this scandal by treating these businesses as global corporations, applying a common rate of corporation tax (ending tax havens) and having a global tax body to regulate at the same scale and raise finance to tackle global problems with redistribution and reparations.
Thomas Piketty wants to go further with new global taxes. A global wealth tax on the top 1% would raise $1.56 trillion annually – enough to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals to 2030. A global financial transaction tax (0.1%) would raise $500billion and put a brake on pointless speed trading. A global tax on extraction of natural resources of 1% would raise $300 billion. National taxation and redistribution is currently not reducing poverty and inequality quickly enough. Overseas Development Aid is not working either as the Global South returns far more in debt repayments to the banks of the Global North.
Each government/country has their own goals for poverty alleviation so the SDGs are fundamentally international not global. The International Politics of Social Justice is a fake. No serious discussion about tax co-ordination, sovereign debt or international trade rules takes place at even the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. International Development has just become a smokescreen for tackling poverty and inequality, in reality nothing concrete is being done. Instead we need a layer of global federal democracy, a world parliament, global law and a global tax body.
What do we mean by “think global”, act local”? How should political power be distributed between entities at different levels?
The Anti-Globalisation Movement and the World Social Forum believed ‘another world is possible’ and wanted ‘globalization from below’. But eco-villages and co-operatives are not enough and the movement fizzled out. Right-wing populists want de-globalisation (with racist nationalism which will only lead to conflict). Democratic globalism is the best option for combating climate change and other global problems. No globalisation without representation! Details need to be worked out … Global Ministry of the Environment, Global Tax Body, Global (not international) Law etc. “We the peoples” campaigns are urgently needed for global democracy, online voting and spreading power more equally.
A democratic federal world government is needed to stop climate change, reduce inequality and ensure human rights. Small scale solutions (ecovillages, transition towns) may seem attractive and there is nothing wrong with indigenous style living; but using clothes, computers and using electricity means still being part of a world system. Really caring about social justice means system change at a global level. All the world’s people must have a say in how the world’s systems are arranged. Globalism must trump localism (especially if tribalism).
Why can’t the Universal Declaration, the international treaties, the UN agencies and even the ICC provide us with real human rights?
All people have human rights – entitlements granted from society. Global rights require global enforcement. But UN Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 was not a binding treaty (aspirational only). An International Criminal Court was initially opposed by US, Russia and China instead international human rights law was introduced through 9 treaties but signing/ratifying was optional and there was no enforcement mechanism. Finally, an International Criminal Court was set up at The Hague in 1998 to hold individuals accountable but it was not recognised by many countries. To have a proper global human rights system, humanity needs a democratic global federation.
What are the causes of the huge numbers of migrants and refugees today?
Why did the USA build a wall and why is there ‘fortress Europe’? Wouldn’t it be better to have a world without borders? For that we need a democratic federal world government.
The huge suffering caused by poverty and awful living conditions in many parts of the world is not being addressed properly. No wonder so many will risk everything to make it to the “land of plenty”. In 1950 the UNHCR initiated the Refugee Convention then incorporated the International Organisation for Migration. But the definition of refugees and economic migrants remains a problematic distinction and is left to individual nation states to police, leading to transitory camps and desperate people who are left in legal limbo while the rich can travel freely. The UNHCR is usually reduced to offering humanitarian assistance only; and even after the Global Compact on Migration, governments around the world resist an asylum system set at a global level and opt for the status quo while pretending to take action. Only a democratic global federation recognising world citizens, with a world passport will have the will to address the underlying drivers of inequality that lead to mass migration.
Surely a world federation is impossible, it is too risky and too utopian?
Are 200 odd legally separate governments all in competition really better than a world federation?
Firstly, it is claimed that people are tribal and the whole of humanity is too large to relate too, but multiple complex allegiances prevail in many walks of life, people easily develop a shared identity and interest in our one planetary home. If nation states can operate taxation, the rule of law and democracy; a global federalist union could do the same.
Secondly, it is said that much of the world’s population do not value democracy. But how do we know? And it is much of the consumption from democratic states which undemocratically intervenes and funds and supports oligarchy elsewhere. A global democratic justice system and global welfare would be valued everywhere if funded by global taxes. Global democracy – a government of humanity by humanity and for humanity (the full democratic circle) is the alternative to the existing system of political injustice.
Thirdly, democracy works only on a small scale. But (a) not all small communities are harmonious. There is no empirical corelation between size and democracy. (b) Balance can be struck between decentralisation and centralisation of power. There is always room for diversity and it can be an advantage. Coalitions are needed and useful. A federation on the scale of the whole world will mean that no one group dominates. (c) In a global democracy politicians will need to find out the issues that votes care about. The system of electing representatives to work for you works so well in the corporate world at a global level that multi-nationals have swept all before them. So why would it not work equally well in the political sphere also.
Fourthly, a world federation would become a dangerous tyrannical dystopia. But our present situation is analogous to Athenian Greece; from the wider perspective of women, or landless peasants, or slaves or people in occupied lands (with no vote), it was one big oligarchy (the rule of the few). The world is set up today with democracy and freedom and riches for the few, but an oligarchy of oppression and poverty for the many. Corporations are afraid that in a world federation where there will no longer be for them anywhere to hide away their profits. Time for them to pay their share. We can easily divide government horizontally between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. We can divide them further vertically between the central levels and the regional and local levels. But the division of state power between 200 states that is the one type of division that is not helpful for us the 99%. Imagine how much more we could achieve together if our government system was global?
Mark Dick and Tony Emerson discussed this important question regarding global governance in the Joy in Enough talk on Wednesday 15 March 2023 at 7pm
Mark Dick writes (based on A World Parliament by Jo Leinen and Andreas Bummel): - Why the need for a World Parliament? ……..Because it is time to represent all of humanity in decision making. Presently we, the peoples, have no say at a global level.
What would it look like? A directly elected second (first!) chamber at the UN? Central decision makers must be held accountable. A world parliament would aid the development of a planetary consciousness, and ideological voting-blocks would form to discuss shared ideas and eventually global political parties would emerge, to have open discussion on globalisation, climate change etc.
A practical idea? Visionary? Not workable? Could a kind of global citizens assembly ever be workable?
Questions from Tony
Can you briefly outline how democracy has evolves through the ages?
Assembly Democracy — ancient Athens -spoken word
Electoral Democracy — 1776 - 1945 - written word
Monitory Democracy (John Keane) - post-1945 digital mass communication
Global Democracy? assemblies, elections and more monitoring and citizen engagement
What are the political obstacles that need to be overcome?
Who governs the world, and how? Well global governance is messy and complicated. It can be divided into (1) state centred governance, (2) multi-stakeholder governance and (3) private governance.
Firstly, International organisations like the United Nations are not fully democratic (one state, one vote with no population weighing); the World Bank and IMF are more one dollar, one vote (US holds a veto) and operate unfair loan conditionalities to poorer nations; the G7 and G20 “Clubs of Governments” are undemocratic and operate behind closed doors; and even more secretive are trans-governmental networks such as Financial Stability Board FSB and International Competition Network ICN.
Secondly, multi-stakeholder governance includes government officials, NGOs and trans-national business organisations but who elected them, whom do they represent – shareholder/corporate rule? Multi-stakeholder networks dealt badly with COVID through COVAX.
Thirdly, private governance is the most undemocratic governance of all : Big Finance, Big Oil, Big Pharma. There is no regulation of banking in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) or internet domain name access in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the problems of the Investor State Dispute System (ISDS) demonstrate how undemocratic our world is. Corporate courts and private tribunals seem to be necessary to enforce global business law for the elite but global human rights law has no such governance. Far better to have a global democracy overseeing all global governance.
A federation is one political unit with subsidiarity of devolved powers to regions (multi-level governance), but with two central chambers one to represent the states/regions and one to represent individual citizens. A confederation is a union of equal sovereign states. The EU is a hybrid model. Thirty countries (mostly the larger ones) are federations (40% of world population) because federations are excellent for large complex societies (giving equal status to all citizens). Unfortunately, the UN is a weak confederation of sovereign states with no representation for individuals. Federation could improve global governance and world politics by transferring power both up and down to aid redistribution and tackling climate change.
Why have we not stopped the global climate destabilising already?
Because climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol do not work! A federal global democratic government could bring about a reduction in fossil fuels, develop green alternatives and make real climate justice.
So far international institutions in our current system have been dangerously ineffective in the face of the scale of the global climate crisis. The harm-producers of the Global North, causing such catastrophic negative externalities need to be brought under a global justice system. The current international COP events allow nation state polluters to set unambitious emission targets or simply withdraw from agreements – ‘naming and shaming’ is not enough. Above all national parliaments there should be a world parliament – “no emissions, without permissions”.
Thirty years have been wasted. Voluntary reduction in fossil fuels by some has reduced demand globally, lead to cheaper fuel and then more use and pollution by others. Oil reserves are huge, and potentially worth a lot of money, leading to the “prisoner’s dilemma” for fossil fuel companies to cash in and literally or metaphorically build fortresses on higher ground to avoid sea level rise (cf “The Wall” by John Lanchester or “Nomad Century” by Gaia Vince). Clean renewable energies have rapidly come down in price but fossil fuels still supply 85% of the world’s energy needs and at the current rate it will 20-25 years to replace them completely (and the fossil fuel giants have such power that they are able to buy political favour and slow down change).
Those who want to delay change argue that carbon taxes harm the poor most and the Global North (whose prosperity has been built on coal and oil) does not have the right to deny the industrial revolution benefits to others. But in a global democratic system “loss and damage” would become real as a world parliament, a global tax system and global law and justice would ensure proper reparations!
Why have poverty and inequality soared since the 1980s?
In the international system it is impossible to close tax havens, stop transfer mis-pricing, and tax corporations. International development and the SDGs don’t reduce poverty. A democratic global government could bring more justice and equality.
Today, half the world’s population live on less than $5.50 per day and just 26 of the world’s richest individuals own more than this 50% of humanity combined (3.3 billion people). The problem is that the economy today operates at a global level while the political regulation operates at a national level. Currently there is no democratic method to change the system. When most countries tax systems were set up to aid redistribution during 1930s - 1960s cross-border economic activity was relatively low. Tax systems have not be able to adapt to globalisation post 1980 and corporate tax rates have become a race to the bottom reducing government coffers for redistribution everywhere.
Two thirds of world trade is carried out by 100,000 trans-national corporations - networks of separate (yet connected) units in each country of operation. Transfer mis-pricing is the method these units use to interact their business inside the trans-national corporation to avoid tax. Governments lose $138 billion to tax havens this way. Global democracy could solve this scandal by treating these businesses as global corporations, applying a common rate of corporation tax (ending tax havens) and having a global tax body to regulate at the same scale and raise finance to tackle global problems with redistribution and reparations.
Thomas Piketty wants to go further with new global taxes. A global wealth tax on the top 1% would raise $1.56 trillion annually – enough to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals to 2030. A global financial transaction tax (0.1%) would raise $500billion and put a brake on pointless speed trading. A global tax on extraction of natural resources of 1% would raise $300 billion. National taxation and redistribution is currently not reducing poverty and inequality quickly enough. Overseas Development Aid is not working either as the Global South returns far more in debt repayments to the banks of the Global North.
Each government/country has their own goals for poverty alleviation so the SDGs are fundamentally international not global. The International Politics of Social Justice is a fake. No serious discussion about tax co-ordination, sovereign debt or international trade rules takes place at even the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. International Development has just become a smokescreen for tackling poverty and inequality, in reality nothing concrete is being done. Instead we need a layer of global federal democracy, a world parliament, global law and a global tax body.
What do we mean by “think global”, act local”? How should political power be distributed between entities at different levels?
The Anti-Globalisation Movement and the World Social Forum believed ‘another world is possible’ and wanted ‘globalization from below’. But eco-villages and co-operatives are not enough and the movement fizzled out. Right-wing populists want de-globalisation (with racist nationalism which will only lead to conflict). Democratic globalism is the best option for combating climate change and other global problems. No globalisation without representation! Details need to be worked out … Global Ministry of the Environment, Global Tax Body, Global (not international) Law etc. “We the peoples” campaigns are urgently needed for global democracy, online voting and spreading power more equally.
A democratic federal world government is needed to stop climate change, reduce inequality and ensure human rights. Small scale solutions (ecovillages, transition towns) may seem attractive and there is nothing wrong with indigenous style living; but using clothes, computers and using electricity means still being part of a world system. Really caring about social justice means system change at a global level. All the world’s people must have a say in how the world’s systems are arranged. Globalism must trump localism (especially if tribalism).
Why can’t the Universal Declaration, the international treaties, the UN agencies and even the ICC provide us with real human rights?
All people have human rights – entitlements granted from society. Global rights require global enforcement. But UN Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 was not a binding treaty (aspirational only). An International Criminal Court was initially opposed by US, Russia and China instead international human rights law was introduced through 9 treaties but signing/ratifying was optional and there was no enforcement mechanism. Finally, an International Criminal Court was set up at The Hague in 1998 to hold individuals accountable but it was not recognised by many countries. To have a proper global human rights system, humanity needs a democratic global federation.
What are the causes of the huge numbers of migrants and refugees today?
Why did the USA build a wall and why is there ‘fortress Europe’? Wouldn’t it be better to have a world without borders? For that we need a democratic federal world government.
The huge suffering caused by poverty and awful living conditions in many parts of the world is not being addressed properly. No wonder so many will risk everything to make it to the “land of plenty”. In 1950 the UNHCR initiated the Refugee Convention then incorporated the International Organisation for Migration. But the definition of refugees and economic migrants remains a problematic distinction and is left to individual nation states to police, leading to transitory camps and desperate people who are left in legal limbo while the rich can travel freely. The UNHCR is usually reduced to offering humanitarian assistance only; and even after the Global Compact on Migration, governments around the world resist an asylum system set at a global level and opt for the status quo while pretending to take action. Only a democratic global federation recognising world citizens, with a world passport will have the will to address the underlying drivers of inequality that lead to mass migration.
Surely a world federation is impossible, it is too risky and too utopian?
Are 200 odd legally separate governments all in competition really better than a world federation?
Firstly, it is claimed that people are tribal and the whole of humanity is too large to relate too, but multiple complex allegiances prevail in many walks of life, people easily develop a shared identity and interest in our one planetary home. If nation states can operate taxation, the rule of law and democracy; a global federalist union could do the same.
Secondly, it is said that much of the world’s population do not value democracy. But how do we know? And it is much of the consumption from democratic states which undemocratically intervenes and funds and supports oligarchy elsewhere. A global democratic justice system and global welfare would be valued everywhere if funded by global taxes. Global democracy – a government of humanity by humanity and for humanity (the full democratic circle) is the alternative to the existing system of political injustice.
Thirdly, democracy works only on a small scale. But (a) not all small communities are harmonious. There is no empirical corelation between size and democracy. (b) Balance can be struck between decentralisation and centralisation of power. There is always room for diversity and it can be an advantage. Coalitions are needed and useful. A federation on the scale of the whole world will mean that no one group dominates. (c) In a global democracy politicians will need to find out the issues that votes care about. The system of electing representatives to work for you works so well in the corporate world at a global level that multi-nationals have swept all before them. So why would it not work equally well in the political sphere also.
Fourthly, a world federation would become a dangerous tyrannical dystopia. But our present situation is analogous to Athenian Greece; from the wider perspective of women, or landless peasants, or slaves or people in occupied lands (with no vote), it was one big oligarchy (the rule of the few). The world is set up today with democracy and freedom and riches for the few, but an oligarchy of oppression and poverty for the many. Corporations are afraid that in a world federation where there will no longer be for them anywhere to hide away their profits. Time for them to pay their share. We can easily divide government horizontally between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. We can divide them further vertically between the central levels and the regional and local levels. But the division of state power between 200 states that is the one type of division that is not helpful for us the 99%. Imagine how much more we could achieve together if our government system was global?
Please help in debunking these myths.