Globalisation - What Implications for Democratic Decision Making.

Globalisation - What Implications for Democratic Decision Making

We have seen above that globalisation is putting pressure on governments to adjust the machinery of government, in order to improve their capacity to operate in the new globalised policy environment. But the challenge does not stop there. Globalisation has implications for the internal balance of power in OECD countries - including between levels of government, and between Parliaments and the Executive - and between groups of countries. And it is not just affecting the role of government actors in the policy process. The roles of all policy players - interest groups, the media, citizens - are changing in the face of internationalisation. There has been little debate about the extent to which these changing roles and relationships impact upon democratic processes, at either the national or the international levels. What effects is globalisation having on democracy?

A changing balance of power and relationships?

The internal balance of power in OECD countries is being affected by globalisation. As noted above, some sub-national governments are, as a result, seeking direct representation in international decision-making fora. The rationale behind this is that

executive government is entering into agreements that have serious implications for their given functions and responsibilities. For example, environmental treaties set limits on sub-national governments' capacities to manage local land and resource use. From

the other side, globalisation is used as an argument for national unity - that when national governments speak with one voice, the collective interests of state governments will be maximised - as was used in Canada, with respect to the debate on Quebec separation.(18) In any event, national governments will need to develop ways to improve co-operation with other levels of government through better communication and consultation - so as to reconcile national and sub-national interests in the global policy environment.

Globalisation also has implications for the relationships between groups of countries. The development of regional groupings - such as the European Union, NAFTA and APEC(19)- and international or multilateral agreements, particularly in the area of

trade policy, such as the World Trade Organisation, demands some thought on its implications for the international balance of power or "international influence". Dependency theorists argue that globalisation strengthens strong states at the expense of

small peripheral players in the global economy.(20) Apart from their stated internal goals, regional grouping may be one way for countries - particularly small economies - to maximise their influence in global fora. So are regionalism and multilateralism contradictory or complementary trends? In practice, regionalism may be a step on the way to multilateralism, and a means to equalise the power relationships in international decision-making between heterogeneous players. During the Uruguay Round, the European Union showed the extent to which the bargaining power of individual member states could be enhanced by collective action.(21)

Is globalisation enhancing participatory democracy?

Citizens are now informed directly from international sources, particularly via global television and, more recently, the Internet. It is no longer possible for governments to censor or control in-flows or out-flows of information. This may help to build

democracy in traditionally closed countries - for example, by exposing dirty secrets such as human rights abuses - but it also facilitates the entry of what might be considered undesirable information such as pornography, racist propaganda, or even

instructions on how to carry out terrorist activities.(22) Information technology has effectively eliminated the capacity of countries to keep ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Is globalisation enhancing participatory democracy?

instructions on how to carry out terrorist activities.(22) Information technology has effectively eliminated the capacity of countries to keep out foreign influences; "good" or "bad".

This increased access to information has a "democratising effect" - politicising citizens and often mobilising them into action - which in turn has significant implications for national policy development processes. For example, citizens can use information

about what neighbouring governments are or are not doing, to challenge or pressure their own governments. Calls for referenda on EU membership, or fundamental EU legislation, in some EU countries (especially those without a tradition of referenda) were inevitably influenced by well-documented events occurring in neighbouring countries.

(go into the activism as related to globalisation that has occurred)

Globalisation allows people to organise themselves more quickly and effectively across national borders. Interest groups are increasingly organised internationally and capable of influencing the policy debate in several countries at the same time. A prominent example is Greenpeace, the environmental group formed in Canada in 1977, now an international organisation with 40 offices in 30 countries and annual revenues of $US 130 million and a staff of over 1,000.(23) The recent Royal Dutch/Shell Brent Spar case illustrates the capacity of such internationally organised interest groups to mobilise citizens and to create strategic pressure simultaneously in multiple countries. The 1993 Rio Summit and the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population Growth are examples of fora where governments were lobbied both by their own and by foreign interest groups. The world

conference on women in Beijing bore witness to the same phenomenon. Multi-level pressures on governments to react - from national and foreign interest groups and from foreign governments sometimes wielding to pressure from local interest groups -

are becoming more common and harder to resist.

Even domestic interest groups collaborate with foreign counterparts. New communications technologies are allowing groups - linked by race, religion or conviction - to overcome the barriers of physical distance. And because citizens talk to each other, governments must as well. For example, groups of indigenous people - such as New Zealand Maori, Australian Aboriginals and Canadian Indians - are increasingly sharing strategies across national borders, putting pressure on governments to know

more about what their counterparts are doing in response.

The global news media is another important international influence. It increasingly defines international issues and events, which consequently demand immediate responses from governments. Images of starving children or massacres, wherever they occur,

are projected into living-rooms around the world, shaping public opinion and demands. Governments themselves are using the global media to influence global public opinion. It has been suggested that, while Canada was legally in the wrong in seizing a Spanish vessel in the recent fishing dispute between the two countries (also involving the European Union generally), Canada/it won a lot of sympathy by skilfully handling the surrounding media campaign. Saddam Hussein used the media strategically during the Gulf War, a strategy that was later described as "hand-to-hand video combat".(24)

International relations and events are therefore more visible and transparent, have more domestic policy ramifications, and involve the public more often. Consequently, the policy process is more complex. But does greater access to information and

greater participation in policy processes by an increasing range of policy actors make those processes and their outcomes more legitimate, responsive and hence democratic? Or are policy processes captured by powerful interests with special access to

information and its dissemination?

Or adding to the democratic deficit?

While globalisation and its many manifestations may have enhanced participation in the international political and policy process, it may be having some contrary effects on other aspects of the democratic process.

Governments may take policy processes to the international level as a strategy to escape domestic opposition and to limit the number of players involved in policy. The "behind-closed-doors" nature of international trade negotiations, for example, has been noted as being helpful in overcoming protectionist pressures on the domestic front.(25) Claiming "tied hands" as a result of international agreements, may be a way for governments to present policies at home that are - despite being in the national interest (however defined) - unpalatable to certain groups, and therefore politically difficult to implement. There may, in practice, be an implicit trade-off between efficiency and democracy.

There may also be a shift of power from elected to non-elected bodies. The tendency to resort to international decision making (including treaties and international agreements) seems to be increasing the power of executive government at the expense of

parliaments. This is most clear for members of the European Union, especially as it relates to European directives and regulations. Unlike the EU Treaties themselves, they have not been submitted to national parliaments for ratification. These instruments, which take precedence over national laws, are put into effect without any involvement by national legislatures. The Maastricht Treaty gave the European Parliament the power to veto regulations, but the consolidation of the interests of the diverse citizenries of Europe into one legislative body raises interesting accountability and responsiveness issues of its own. The erosion of parliamentary oversight is likely to be a key issue in the democracy debate in future. Parliaments already appear to be demanding more say in the international undertakings of their governments. But can parliamentary oversight be built into international decision making, without adding significant costs and unnecessary delays? If not, are there new forms of democratic accountability that could be developed?

As more decisions are taken at the international level, there are also likely to be demands for more transparency and greater accountability in international fora. Citizens at the local level will demand to know who is driving the debate at the international level, and under what authority. These demands apply to both governmental and non-governmental policy actors. If international interest groups are influencing the policy debate, then citizens will be keen to know who is in charge, what their mandate is, and how they are funded.

What future for "global governance"?

The impacts of globalisation on democratic accountability at both the national and international levels will need to be carefully monitored. Most OECD countries have taken significant steps recently to improve accountability and openness in domestic policy-making processes. The same emphasis however, has not been placed on the development of "world domestic policy"(26) or "global governance".

Global governance can be loosely defined as the process by which we collectively manage and govern resources, issues, conflicts and values in a world that is increasingly a "global neighbourhood".(27) But there is currently no "world government". What we have is a range of unco-ordinated international institutions - the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the OECD - which manage, set guidelines, or make rules, for better or for worse, in selected policy areas. Some of them are currently under considerable pressure to reform. Whatever the future institutional arrangements, democracy, transparency and openness will need to feature alongside effectiveness as important considerations in the development of the structures of global governance.

Considerations of the connection between democratic processes and international decisions are just beginning to surface. The European Union - perhaps a harbinger for global governance - is currently the subject of much national and inter-member debate on the relative roles, responsibilities and accountability relationships between the Commission, the Parliament, the Council and Member governments (including national Parliaments).(28)

As in national decision-making processes, strategies for integrating multiple interests into policy would also help to improve democracy at the international level. Questions have been raised recently, even in the OECD context, as to whether the current arrangements for consultation with labour and business(29) should be augmented by procedures to consult with other interests such as consumer or environmental groups. It is important that these procedures be well managed. There is a danger - as exists in the national context - that pressures from well-organised lobbies will overshadow the needs of the less vocal majority. This concern has been expressed as special interest groups mushroom in Brussels.

The good news is that international decision-making fora are surviving in the face of significant challenges. For example, the recent fisheries dispute in the North Atlantic, despite being difficult, did not result in withdrawal of either party from the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, which currently governs catch quotas in the region. Rather, it resulted in calls for improved management measures and dispute-resolution procedures. The new dispute-resolution processes of the WTO, while as yet untested, offer new capacities for shoring up an international trade framework that is fragile but beneficial to all parties, and certainly preferable to unilateral sanctions and reprisals.

In other words, countries must invest more in building effective and legitimate international organisations that are capable of delivering results, while maintaining democratic values. A range of procedures are needed including; new negotiation, mediation, and dispute-resolution; mechanisms for building trust and mutual confidence between countries; and assessment and revision processes. Building international institutions that are fair and well respected poses a challenge to all parties involved in

international policy making.

In building mutual trust, and the other foundations of global governance, national governments face the challenge of communicating to local populations the extent to which the domestic and international dimensions of policy are inextricably linked. They must also prove that sovereignty can actually be enhanced rather than diminished by active participation in international decision making. But this in turn will need to be built on the legitimacy and effectiveness of decisions taken at the international level. A virtuous circle of reinforcement is therefore imperative.

Rising to the challenge

Despite a great deal of hand-wringing about the challenges posed by globalisation, the process also offers many opportunities, including the potential to strengthen policy effectiveness, to tap ideas from other countries, and to have more influence over the

international decision-making process that inevitably affects us all. But this will require some adjustment in the structures of government. It will require public-sector staff to be skilled and competent to work in an international environment. It will require better co-ordination and strategic direction at the centre of government. And, most importantly, it will require effort and investment at the international level to develop and maintain appropriate checks, balances and democratic quality in the structures and processes of "global governance".

If the above discussion has raised more questions that it gives answers, then it reflects the reality. There are no model solutions to these complex issues. Rising to the challenge of the globalised world is something that all countries will approach from their own historical, cultural and political-administrative traditions. What is important is that governments do not bend to pressures to pull back from an international activity in the vain hope of avoiding the impacts of globalisation. That would prove to be both counter-productive and ineffective.