Democratic legitimacy of transnational governments
Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
Transnational government results when there is a shift of the
traditional centrifugal State governance system which has a vertical
structure, to a horizontal and dialogue driven form of governance by the
triumvirate of State, civil society and public and private enterprise.
This form of governance has so far not been addressed by political
scientists in a systematic way so as to bring to bear the essentials of
such a system of governance. This is particularly so in the issue of
democratic legitimacy of transnational government, which lies very much
in the balance depending on acceptable definitions of democracy,
transnational governance and the transformation of governance from its
central role to a more extended role which transcends national
boundaries.
As an initial step one must distinguish between government and
governance, which are often used alternatively, obfuscating the
distinction between the two. Government is the process that runs a
sovereign State. One definition of democratic government would be
government of the people, by the people and for the people, as defined
by United States President Abraham Lincoln.
Taking this concept beyond the boundaries of a nation State would
mean the extension of the process of democratization to what Alexander
Someil, an acknowledged political scientist calls “democratic
minimalism”, which is the decomposition of a coherent whole (called
democracy) into several of its component elements.
The ambivalence of transnational governance is reflected in the fact
that, while on the one hand an arbitrarily theoretical concept that
applies using a series of fragmented pieces of democracy could obfuscate
the true characteristics of democratic minimalism, on the other hand the
application of the legitimate and valid minimalist elements to a
transnational governance model could improve the democratic process.
A sovereign State has four characteristics: It has a defined
geographic area; an identified people; the ability to make its own
decisions with regard to its rule; and the ability to exclude other
States’ influence in the running of its government and its external
relations policy. Governance on the other hand is what a “government”
does and relates to decisions that define expectations.
It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of
management or leadership processes. In other words, “governance” is the
application of rules, processes and conduct to ensure that powers are
exercised properly. The basic principles of governance are openness,
participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence.
Transnational government would therefore have to apply these
principle both regularly and collectively in order to achieve democratic
legitimacy. Someil implies that such legitimacy would require to be
achieved through a common public sphere in which “vigilant citizens
monitor and discuss public policy and in which they are connected
through the awareness that there is a mutual sense of community and
belonging”.
There are three ways in which a political process achieves such
legitimacy on a transnational basis: firstly when the practice of
politics in a particular jurisdiction is authorized by, and under the
control of the people or a major representative body; secondly, where
such a political process is appropriately responsive to the needs and
interests of the people; and finally when the decisions made do not
conflict with the interests of the people and their equality.
For there to be an accepted system of transnational government beyond
a State government, there should be recognition that such a demarcation
of a functionally differentiated membership is legitimized to
participate in governance across borders. In other words, there should
be functionally differentiated community which personifies and
effectively demonstrates the dimension of government by the people. Such
a membership must show ability for problem solving for their people,
participatory democracy and a deliberative capacity.
The requirements for adherence to these principles would strongly
militate against a race or portion thereof unilaterally declaring a
transnational government without engaging in the proper democratic
process of minimalism within collective participation of the executive.
A classic example at a genuine attempt at transnational governance is
the introduction by the European Commission of the White Paper on
European Governance. Although it has been criticized as a “subtle
diatribe against the prevalence of inter-governmentalism” and a “lofty
attempt at regional governance” which is a narrow conception of
democracy, in theory the underlying principle of the paper is based on
the fact that European citizens have lost understanding of a complex
political system that has politically coalesced their nations into a
union of States and that they feel alienated from the work of the
European Union.
The paper is therefore calculated to bridge the widening gap between
the policy making behemoth and the various nations it controls by
increasing the ability of the people of Europe to take part in public
debate through a bottom up approach with regard to the communication of
public policy.
The ultimate goal of this policy is to create a transnational space
in which citizens of different countries can discuss their own
perceptions of issues confronting their Union. The aim of this policy is
laudable as it serves a dual purpose of ensuring that policymakers are
aware of the pulse of the people, and that the people have a sense of
participating in a democratic process.
Above all, the parliaments concerned, i.e. the European Parliament
and respective national parliaments could consolidate their places in a
democratic process and facilitate dialogue between the bureaucracy of
the European Commission and civil society.
The only element of caution that usually accompanies the notion of
transnational governance is prevalent in the White Paper, since,
although in theory the objectives sound laudable, in reality such a
coalescence between the European Commission and the opening of
communication channels with interdependencies could lead to what one
commentator calls a “benevolent dictatorship” which would further
alienate the European Commission from parliamentary democracy.
Transnationalism by no means implies the disappearance of the Nation
State. It merely means that besides and beyond a Nation state, a
horizontal system of governance may exist beyond the boundaries of that
State, provided the concept of national autonomy and sovereignty are not
eroded and not taken for granted.
It acts as a deviation from the “hard laws” of a Nation State to
“soft rules and guidelines” achieved through international discourse
provided by the elements of transnationalism. Transnationalism typifies
“epistemic” societies, i.e, societies of expertise and practice mostly
consisting of technocrats and other professionals who bring with them
the ability to link Nation States with groups which could introduce
governance across boundaries.
Transnational governance therefore consists of dialogue-oriented
forms of coordination between state, civil-society and economic actors.
Deliberative governance is essentially horizontal and based on a
dialogue-oriented political style between state and non-state actors who
establish and apply a collective approach with a view to aiming for an
effective problem solving process.
Such participatory procedures concede the ability of non-State actors
to exert political influence not only by voting in certain
circumstances, but also by giving the participating actors the
opportunity to convince the Nation State of their issues with
argumentative rationality.
Therefore, while on the one hand deliberative governance anchors
itself on a structural character of procedures that coerces the
participants to bring forth publicly acceptable reasons to foster their
concerns, goals and aspirations, on the other hand the thrust of such a
process would largely depend on the individual capability, willingness
and reliance upon the effective use of free public reason
Dr. Hans K”chler, in an article entitled “Reinventing Transnational
Government” recognizes that -
“transnational economic and information networks are spanning the
globe in an ever more complex form and directly affect the
decision-making processes at the national level. These processes expose
every citizen to influence from beyond the realm of the traditional
nation-state, whether in regard to employment opportunities,
environmental quality, domestic and regional security, etc.
The political entity (in most cases: the traditional nation-state) to
which each citizen belongs is itself transformed by these complex
interdependencies and increasingly reaches the limits of its capacity
when it comes to the protection of the interests of the citizens within
the domestic realm. These developments have led to the gradual emergence
of a global civil society which articulates a common awareness of the
problems facing the human race and brings about a new transnational
reality that goes well beyond intergovernmental relations in the
classical sense”.
Transnational governance is essentially a proactive political process
that would particularly assist international organizations in their
dialogue with member States and dialogues between States themselves.
It is also abundantly clear that transnational governance is in
essence a democratic and discursive process which introduces an added
dimension to an already democratic process and is calculated to
transcend boundaries and bring groups of States and nations together.
This by no means implies that transnational governance could be a tool
for prolonging a racial struggle that is calculated to oust a legitimate
government or carve out a portion of land for a particular race.
|