Globalisation ? What Implications For Democratic Decision Making Essay, Research Paper
`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 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
challengeDespite 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.