The Concept of Cosmopolitan Democracy - Coursework Example

COSMOPOLITAN DEMOCRACY 2006 INTRODUCTION The first use of term 'cosmopolitanism' in a political sense (world government serving sovereign nations parliaments) can be traced back to the 17th century (Tnnsj, 2004). However, it was not until the last century that the concept of 'cosmopolitan democracy' emerged with several outstanding political theorists. Emergence of this concept was due to the fact that many problems humankind had faced over the course of 20th century seemed difficult to cope with on a national level. Apparently, the most important of those problems was the issue of lasting peace and secure environment: the two World Wars vividly demonstrated critical importance of the peace issue. Later on, other important issues such as global environmental problems, global justice system, crimes against humanity and economic and cultural globalisation added to the global peace concern. The concept of cosmopolitan democracy was supposed to resolve or at least alleviate these global problems. The main idea of cosmopolitan democracy is to design and implement "a system of governance arising from and adapting to the diverse conditions and interconnections between different peoples and nations" (Held, 1998: 25). David Held and Daniele Archibugi, the most renowned European theorists of cosmopolitan democracy, argue that although democracy has gained universal acclaim as the best form of political establishment after fall of the Iron Curtail and end of the Cold War, it influences only domestic level, while the realm of international relations remains practically unaffected by democratic processes. International institutions, including the United Nations organization and European Union do not care much about democratisation of their activities which results in lack of accountability and restricted public access to information. The risk is that if this tendency remains, democratic forms of governance will give up to authoritarianism (McGrew, 2002). Cosmopolitanism offers an alternative that helps effectively fight the tendency of increasing authoritarianism. Held and Archibugi provide detailed explanation of their vision of international cosmopolitan democracy. Seven basic assumptions shape the intrinsic logic of cosmopolitan democracy: Democracy is to be conceptualized as a process, rather than as a set of norms and procedures. A feuding system of states hampers democracy within states. Democracy within states favours peace, but does not necessarily produce a virtuous foreign policy. Global democracy is not just the achievement of democracy within each state. Globalization erodes states' political autonomy and thereby curtails the efficacy of state-based democracy. The stakeholders' communities in a relevant and growing number of specific issues do not necessarily coincide with states' territorial borders. Globalization engenders new social movements engaged with issues that affect other individuals and communities, even when these are geographically and culturally very distant from their own political community (Archibugi, 2004: 439). These assumptions suggest that contemporary form of national democracy must be seriously transformed in order to survive. Firstly, the sovereignty of the nation states must be restricted by increasing numbers of international treaties and conventions. Secondly, the existing international governing structures must be reformed to provide a better opportunity for international dialogue and democratic decision-making. Thus, Derk Bienen, another known theorist of cosmopolitan democracy, claims that in order to achieve these goals the UN must establish a second chamber consisting of members elected directly by people, the veto-right of the Security Council should be limited, and the system of international courts has to be strengthened and reformed in a way to provide better protection for individuals. Initially, the UN was founded not as an assembly of democratic states: the primary purpose of this organization was to prevent military conflicts similar to WWII. Focusing upon the issues of human rights, environment and cooperation, the UN did promote constitutional democracy, but on the level of states, not on the global level. Consequently, the UN organization has adopted certain geopolitical and economic constraints which hardly match the patterns of cosmopolitan democracy. These constraints must be removed in order the UN would promote democracy on the global level (Bienen et al, 1998). And finally, national states' awareness of the need to create a global cosmopolitan democratic society must be improved (Archibugi, 1998). One may notice that cosmopolitan democracy focuses upon the institutional and political conditions required to effectively govern within, between and across nation states. It tends to build upon the existing international patterns of law and human rights to create an entirely new global environment based upon strong and sound democratic principles. Once this transnational environment is constructed, it is believed to reinforce democratic principles implemented by states and territories, while reinforcement of democratic principles locally will further strengthen the transnational democratic environment (Held, 1995: 234). DISCUSSION Despite its attractiveness, the concept of cosmopolitan democracy has been widely criticised since the days of its emergence, and up to now the number of sceptics seems to exceed the number of believers. The criticism rests upon several serious considerations. Obviously, social, political, economic and cultural patterns we have been witnessing since the last decade of 20th century validate the necessity of cosmopolitan/transnational democracy. Moreover, the chances to establish this method of governing the world seem better nowadays than ever before: the number of states to adopt democracy domestically has skyrocketed over the second half of 20th century (Archibugi, 1998: 202). However, the main argument against the notion of a democratic world government and parliament is that it bears much resemblance to utopian ideas proposed by Plato, Rousseau and other ancient philosophers. Furthermore, even if the new cosmopolitan world order could be established, there are doubts that it would be the best alternative available to humankind. First of all, institutional reforms necessary to construct a cosmopolitan democratic environment will seriously undermine the concept of national sovereignty so that the very existence of sovereign national states may be put at risk. If this happens, there is a probability that cosmopolitan democracy will be replaced by authoritarian regime. As Per Wirten notes, "Held is criticized for the way in which his ideas of cosmopolitan and global democracy in practice might lead to a highly centralized world-government executing a autocratic form of power. This is an important objection and one even Immanuel Kant acknowledged when he wrote The eternal peace" (Wirten, 2002). Although Held claims that while he advocates " the subordination of regional, national and local 'sovereignties' to an overarching legal framework", he is sure that "associations may be self-governing at diverse levels" within this framework (Held 1995: 234), nobody knows for sure which scenario will unfold. In any case, the fact that an inevitable conflict between the national and transnational democracy lies in the core of cosmopolitan democracy hardly admits of any doubt. Another portion of criticism comes from Realist perspective theorists whom argue that proponents of cosmopolitan democracy perspective tend to underestimate and/or misperceive the driving forces of international policy. The Realists argue that since "the principal elements regulating international relations are, ultimately, force and interest", any attempt "to tame international politics through institutions and public participation is pure utopia" (Archibugi, 2004: 453). Archibugi rebuts this argument only partially stating that while force and interest does play certain role in the realm of international relations, interests of many international players may coincide with the notion of ".democratic management of the decision-making process" (Archibugi, 2004: 454). Validity of the basic elements of cosmopolitan democracy and governance - the notions of universal human rights ethics and a global civil society - has also been put in question by many theorists. Presence of these two elements is not confirmed by any empirical evidences. Taking their existence for granted without any reasons the cosmopolitan democracy theorists "end up legitimizing a moral hierarchy in the contemporary world, according to which, institutions, values, cultural forms and lifeforms of the northern societies constitute models to be applied generally" (Costa, 2005). This argument alone is enough to put in question legitimacy of cosmopolitan institutions and governance. The collapse of Soviet Union turned the modern world from bipolar (the USSR bloc versus the USA bloc) to unipolar with the USA being the only dominant power in the world. Consequently, the international perception of the USA has changed seriously. While earlier on the US was viewed as a necessary counterbalance preventing the authoritarian USSR from absolute dominance on the planet, nowadays the country is rather perceived as a hegemon protecting its economic and political interests by any means, including military power. Huge influence of the US on absolute majority of international organizations (including NATO, UN and WTO) has already spoiled international reputation of the country with many European and Asian states which reasonably consider that the US maintains and promotes its narrow economic and political interests through these organizations. As a result, many critics of cosmopolitan democracy admit that " any project that aims to empower global institutions to coordinate and monitor national policies leads de facto to a decrease in the independence of the various states and, ultimately, reinforces the ideology of the current hegemonic power" (Archibugi, 2004: 454). Modern reality proves this argument is absolutely valid: in non-western countries the term 'cosmopolitism' is increasingly considered to be synonymous to the term 'westernisation'. CONCLUSIONS The concept of cosmopolitan democracy is perhaps the most controversial and complex issue in political science these days. On the one hand, transnational democratic governance may be an effective solution to the whole set of global problem humanity has recently faced. Considering the global nature of these problems, solutions to them must be found only on the global level as well. Theoretically, transnational democracy provides a good framework to accomplish this task. Unfortunately, theory and practice often go different ways. Despite attractiveness of the cosmopolitan democracy concept, there are a number of reasons for undertaking a critical assessment of its relevance, desirability and plausibility. Critical analysis of the underlying notions and possible consequences of cosmopolitan democracy reveals numerous drawbacks and potential risks, and put in question practical applicability of this concept. Although adherents of cosmopolitanism try to disprove the critical arguments, all the counterarguments are purely theoretical: no practical evidence can be cited to prove practical value of cosmopolitan democracy in the modern world. By contrast, history of national democracies demonstrate that even on the national level formation of democratic society and adoption of democratic form of governance has always been accompanied with violence, instability and other adversities. And even an established democracy gained through pains and sufferings remains a very fragile system of rule: the number of democracies that have proved their viability throughout centuries is too small, while the number of examples when a young democracy has been overthrown is huge. Since establishment and maintenance of democracy implies such difficulties on the local level, it will be logical to assume that on the global level complexity of this task becomes literally inconceivable, at least for now. Probably, at some moment in the future the task of establishing cosmopolitan democracy on the planet will turn out to be feasible, but in contemporary global environment it is hardly possible. Bibliography: Archibugi, D. (2004). 'Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review'. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3): pp. 438-473 Archibugi, D. and D. Held, Eds. (1995). Cosmopolitan Democracy: an Agenda for a New World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press Archibugi, D. (1998). 'Principles of Cosmopolitan Democracy'. In: D. Archibugi, D. Held, and M. Khler (eds.), Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy. London: Polity: pp. 198-228 Bienen, D., V. Rittberger, and W. Wagner (1998). 'Democracy in the United Nations System. Cosmopolitan and Communitarian Principles'. In: D. Archibugi, D. Held, and M. Khler (eds.), Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy. London: Polity: pp. 287-308. Costa, S. (2005). "Cosmopolitan democracy: conceptual deficits and political errors". Translated by Enrique J. Romera, Revista Brasileira de Cincias Sociais, Vol.1, Special Edition [available from http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.phpscript=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-69092005000100004&lng=en&nrm=iso ] Held, D. (1995). Democracy and Global Order. Cambridge, Polity Press McGrew, A. (2002). 'Transnational Democracy: Theories and Prospects'. In: G. Stokes and A. Carter (Eds.), Democratic Theory Today: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge: Polity Press. Tnnsj, T. (2004). Cosmopolitan Democracy Revisited. Stockholm: Stockholm University [available online from http://people.su.se/folke/cosmo.pdf.] Wirten, P. (2002) 'Free the nation - cosmopolitanism now!' Eurozine, 11(1) [retrieved from http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2002-11-22-wirten-en.html ] Read More