Democratic globalization

To become citizens of a democratic and federal World

Globalization brought people together in various activities.

But the inter-national / inter-governmental paradigm is still reigning
in world politics, an ineffective way to tackle common issues
affecting all mankind.

Global citizens deserve better: the creation of global democratic
federal institutions representing them in key areas in which solutions
can only be global.
The end result would be global democracy.

pont Bridges between Earthlings

Globalization is not just a matter of economic exchange accross our
small planet, but an irreversible process by which Earthlings get
nearer to one another in many life aspects.
Democratic globalization is, you guessed it, the idea that democracy
should apply to global issues and decisions.
But behind such a general, even commonplace, idea, some precisions
and explanations are needed.
For example, the aim is not just "global democracy" (*),
which means to spread democratic practices and the application
of Human rights in all countries and territories.
This common human goal might experience a new impulse, let
us hope, helped by the rise of instant means of communications.

Democratic globalization goes further, its goal is
to get a
democratic world governance
that organize globalization 
in a democratic way

Of course, there are relations between the two aims and it is
wishable that they progress together.

Federalism is the system that would bring democracy at all
("multi scalar concept", to take a mathematical / artistic allegory
pictured by fractals)
Democratic globalization is a common wish of all people who consider
they are global citizens and think that our World needs more (and
better) globalization,
not less, with democratic global institutions.
(*) Democratic persons, organizations and countries
  • should promote democracy and Human rights,
They should support democratic forces in undemocratic
territories and at least not support undemocratic authorities
(something often bypassed for "realpolitik" motives).
  • But they cannot (and should not) impose democracy by force
all the more as it can create new tragedies (Iraq).
The divisions of the world, still based on the pre-eminence
nation-states, make the interventions of a nation into
another one most of the time illegitimate and suspicious,
unless a global consensus is reached
It can also be a "default" solution if a diplomatic unity
is not reached, but if the goal is to
rescue populations in
immediate massive danger (genocide...).

=> Democratic globalization, as proposed in this article,
      would make it more feasible with a World "police"
      and "justice" against rogue governments disrespectful
      of Human rights.
1. More (and better) globalization,
     not less
Whatever nostalgic "deglobalization" supporters say, econsector economic /
market globalization
(that expands free trade and investment) and
communication globalization
(growth of telecommunication and
transportation) already helps bring people closer and creates many
development opportunities.

But, however decisive for mankind (globalization might be defined as
the world becoming itself),
those evolutions:
  • are not enough to tackle several crucial world issues,
  • create or amplify some problems themselves
in various economic, social and environmental aspects.
  • => Some backlash might ensue
(social conflicts, protectionism, communautarism...)

Those drawbacks come largely from a lack of
global democratic counterpowers able to resist to
  * as well national government
  * as economic powers or other powers.

Those counterpowers are needed to reach
a complete globalization in which all mankind would
take part democratically in solving common issues.

2. Democratic global institutions

Between you and me it is crazy that the world
does not have any legal statute, which would
be the least to expect to make it work !

In a nutshell, democratic globalization would be something between
* a world government that would rule all aspects
* and a global governance that would just draw
common rules thanks
   to international consensuses.
The difference would be the existence of global  institutions that
would have sovereignty on some key world domains, within
a federal framework.

They would be democratic institutions in which gradually all world
citizens would be directly  represented;
"directly" means not controled
by nations
The representatives would not be appointed by country governments,
but be elected (or drawn by sortition) directly within the populations.

This would differ from the old "international" (= intergovernmental)
in which bargaining between states, not real democracy,
was the key.
* Nation-states,
* Corporate oligopolies, collusive financial institutions,
* But also power-hungry militant NGOs, cults and mafias

should not go on
confiscating the global power for their parochial

Nation-states specifically, throughout History,
contributed more to conflicts, oppressions and
destructions than to constructive cooperation.

They still consider that "sovereignty" cannot be shared with higher
territorial entities
Also, paradoxically, they overvalue their real power, while ineffective
when facing the other (private) institutions / networks listed above,
some of them organized in a more global way.

Some attempts have been made to build common intergovernmental
political institutions, but they have nearly no supranational power
nor democratic governance.
Where is the UN Parliament that would emanate dirctly from
the World


This new Earth governance should be based on principles of democracy
federalism (power / sovereignty sharing).

Of course, this is the basis of federalim, every entity (nation, region)
keep its full authority on its internal affairs.

Also, the issue is not about political platforms, inspired by the right or
the left or whatever, it is about institutions
. They should conceived
in a way that allows people to make their own choice about their own
global destiny.

Also they should not be plagued by ideological priors (except obviously
a reference to Human rights and democracy principles, the intangible
basis to accept and legitimize such a world governance).

=> It is only if and when those empowered institutions exist that the
      citizens of this planet will become able to chose democratically their
      pollitica orientations and programs.
      Unencumbered by a specific prior doctrine, that they would
      be free to  take into account the world situation and evolutions to
      decide matching politics..

This is a fully different approach from "alterglobalism" or "antiglobalism",
which tries to impose first an ideology

How to reach that goal?

It is a long term goal.
But first steps can be made to address some urgent global issues

Starting with democratic global institutions on specific issues

The process can be started by shaping proposals for a limited number of
global institutions, that would be:

* working under a democratic process (by representing
   representing from the
whole World)
* specialized in a few crucial fields of common interest.
* fully empowered (having their own sovereignty on those
For example
  • boat Seas and oceans
(navigation, safety, fishing, mining rights, piracy, contraband,
High sea is still largely ungoverned and lawless
An adequate common authority would have for example its
own police fleet to intervene against blatant delinquents.

  • Global sous monetary / financial aspects.
That could lead for example to a world monetary reserve
(by enlarging the IMF role).

It would act also as a
world financial authority - or court -
to anticipate and prevent crises affecting such financial institutions
(as was the case of the
subprime crisis) as well as countries
sovereign debt crisis),

In parallel, this would give the opportunity to plant the seeds
of what would become a true world currency standard  (*)
which is badly needed.

They need obviously common initiatives instead of relying only
on - uncoordinated or vaguely coordinated - national actions.

Also, to ensure a more balanced international trade, a
definition of common principles and programs between
currently separate
bodies, sorry for the acronyms, the WTO,
the ILO, the IMF and the WB would be needed.
  • In parallel, broom environmental challenges.
(but with sorting what are true issues an what are "green"
For example recent events in Japan make wonder on the 
aptitudes of individual nations to make nuclear electricity
production safe for mankind, unless the whole World has
the authority to control it.

Also the menacing shortage of some key natural
should lead to some coordination between the
countries that tend to use them too lavishly.
  • Of course, personhuman rights
(the European Court of Human Rights shows an effective
judiciary model),

Sanctions must be applied to tyrannic governments and
in some cases a direct intervention of world authorities in
their countries.

The international criminal
law was estended during the last
hundred years but there is progress to do as immunity for
crimes against humanity is still predominant.

A global authority is also needed to tackle organised crime
and terrorism
(and now cybercrime, which now States
themselves tend to practice at the detriment of individual
freedom and privacy)

Not to mention the power that the Internet giants (social
networks, search engines...) acquired on billions of humain

And in parallel widespread human access
  • to knowledge knowledge and information
    • and, more basically, to bread water, food and health.
  • And the new tehnological challenges to the Human rights
(transhumanism, robotics, personal data crossing)
The judiciary institutions in charge of protecting the Human
rights, still dominated by the nation-states, should get more
enforcement authority
(*) A world reserve currency (an evolution of the IMF special
rights), as a tool for central banks, should be independent
national currencies.

Its value should not be linked to those currencies so as to
be the universal
standard of value. On the contrary the value
of national currencies should refer to that standard, which should
Thus its value should not reflect a "basket" of national currencies,
a "circularity" that
would contaminate it with the national
currencies vagaries.

But that would not be enough, it would be necessary to enlarge
fast the role of that common unit of account as a reference
in key economic and financial transactions

Because of the near collapse of the world monetary system, with
the lack of a true world monetary system, the politicians run the
risk that their cosy monetary power be overtaken
, not by
a common sovereign monetary body, but by the large economic
and financial groups
Those private entities, fearing that the instability and fragility
of the present
situation, lead to a general monetary meltdown,
could get tempted to create in an emergency their own common
currency that would become the universal monetary reference.

Federate later with a World Parliament

The specific bodies proposed above to be in charge of precise and
limited areas, in the hand of people's representatives, might federate
later (it could take decades if not generations) into a full-fledged
democratic World federation with a World parliament.
We are talking here about democracy.
No World government without:

* A World parliament,
* Power sharing at every

Let us remind that federalism does not negate the independence
of States, as on the contrary it guarantees it against other de facto
powers (mentioned above) and other States.
By the way, why not anticipating it by celebrating every year a
World unity day
, the equivalent of a national day but for the
whole planet?
A hint.
We should not shun, on the contrary, experiments in large regions
of the World
(Europe could do it, but after 60 years was not able to
complete the job).
They would give examples of the interest of getting united and would
invent paths on how to organize democratically large and varied territories.

Annex 1:
did the G20 meetings bring progress?
Written first in the democratic globalization forum on April 3rd 2009

The G 20 meetings, (85 percent of the world's economy) started in
2009), were seen as an historical advance towards a world political
unity, at least in economic and financial areas.

It brought a few economic and financial tentative improvements,
some only symbolic, some with real substance. It reestablished
temporarily some confidence, something crucial in economic matters.
An effect that seems now to erode.

It brought marginal progresses towards world governance.
For example
the IMF was granted increased powers and larger
But bizarrely the crucial monetary issues, which are supposed to
be its area, were not addressed.

The G20 became neither an intergovernmental outfit, nor
a true world institution
, with its own means (and direct
people support) that would make its decisions operational.

Even financial supervision, a global issue, stays largely in the
hand of each territory.

Thus, the World still lacks a monetary governance.

This is dramatic considering the responsibility that the wild / excessive
US dollar creation had in the twin crises (the financial one and the
economic one).

A new example of the G20 deficiencies in monetary matters was seen
in its Feb. 2011 decision to follow economic indicators (public debts,
fiscal deficits, private savings rate, private debt, trade balances and
net investment income flows), but without - because of Chinese
opposition - monetary / foreign exchange indicators such as

real exchange rates and currency reserves.

Also n
othing was decided about if and how those indicators would be
used at the global policy level.

Above all, there were no moves, not even stated intentions, towards
democratizing the existing world institutions.

When will ordinary world citizens be represented
as such in global
political institutions?
Annex 2:
Identity, community, network, democracy
A territory should have its areas of autonomy, but not by building 
walls around itself.

(a dangerous word, nobody is identical to anybody else)
can be an attachment to several cultures, areas of interest, territory
layers  (local, regional, national, continental, global) ...
whenever possible to be fully prisoner of only one.

An unprecedented situation is that the World works more
and more under the
network network system which:
  • Allows every node to exist by itself, to differ from the others.
  • But at the same time links it continuously to the others
I am glad to live in the 21st century, to experience something
that was the privilege of a few number of people if we go back
in time.
My thanks to the development of communications.
This evolution creates a totally new paradigm to deal with
political ssues.
Federalism, a vector at the same time of unity and diversity,
of power sharing (absolute sovereignty by nations is a
thing of the past, as it should be shared
) and democracy,
would perfectly fit that "new planet".

As for the appointment of representative, an innovative system
would use a dose of

Politicians, wherether they are from, should better adapt

to that evolution that globalization brought us.
Instead of demonizing globalization, often in order to keep their
own turf (for lack of personal competence to deal with world
matters ?), they should accept to play a larger role, by acting as
a node of a huge  network. They should strive to unite into a
democratic globalization
Let us meet at the
Democratic globalization forum

  (sample / échantillon)

Back to collection: economic articles migrated from Knol
Back to collection: society / world issues articles migrated from Knol

Pageviews for this article before migration from Knol: 6.9 k
This site tracked by Get your own free site tracker.