Democracy and Democratisation Richard Huggins a Introduction [Democracy is the] endpoint of mankind's ideological evolution and the ‘universalization of liberal democracy as the final form of human government. (Francis Fukuyama (1989), "The End of History?’ The National Interest 16: 4) This chapter explores democracy and democratisation — two of the most important and commonly used terms in politics in recent years. Indeed, in recent history it might appear that democracy has ‘won’ the ideological struggles with other, competing political ideologies such as communism. This 's clearly what Francis Fukuyama meant when he talked about the ‘end of history’ and the universalisation of liberal democracy; we can certainly see increasing evidence and examples of democratic forms of government and process of governance all around us. However, despite the apparent familiarity of these concepts, they remain strangely elusive and quite difficult concepts to define. On the one hand, everyone feels that they know, almost implicitly, what these concepts mean. On. the other, their actual meanings and significance remain indistinct, ambiguous and at times thoroughly problematic. There are also two related and, at the same time, distinct elements to this chapter. The first is the concept of, 1 description of a particular ‘ype of politics, namel iad is the notion of a process Dernecrery Tale bey A prgle ——— | —democratisation-—176 CONTENTS 8 Introduction 159 B Democragy in the contemporary ‘context 160 5 Conceptualsing democracy: the search for 2 definition 163 Conceptualising democratisation: process and practice 170 E The citicisms and limits of democracy and 1 Futures of democracy ‘and democratisation 181 Democracy From che original Greek, the term means, literally, rile by the people, or by the ‘many. In modern political systems itis anually linked with universal suffrage, fre clecions and with notions like the consent of the governed, Democratisation The processes by which stares move towards more democratic forms of political systems, Key text: F Fukuyama (1989) “The End of History”, The [National interest 16, pp. 3-18. 159Venseeehe FS 5 ble denacesey = Fosseares te Liberal democracy A docirine, and sometimes a practice, which ‘combines freedom with the idea of popular sovereigney. Liberabtan: FCinbvelal groan, lnited geverant aad Dee selen) Demorvncy 2 F( fetrcipekar ¢ Pepto severcigaty) © 160 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION by which political units reach democratic political organisation, practices and forms. Aguin, put simply, the process through which political entities reach democraey~in other word, domortiation, In this chapter we examine the concept of democracy and explore some definitions, and different models and concepts of democracy, then go on to explore the concept of democratisation. We look at some important criticisms of democracy as a concept and as political practice and finally we look at the furure of democracy in relation to globalisation and technological developments in new media. However, before doing any of this we need to outline some key contextual points and difficulties that should be borne in mind when thinking about and discussing democracy and democratisation, Democracy in the contemporary context A few contextual points about democracy will help the process of analysing this complex concept. First, we need to be aware of the apparently central connectionjbesween/ psalnand depeseg which is stressed in terms of the concept of liberal lemocracy. However, the actual relationship ~ as we will see throughout this chapter ~ may not be as close as we think. In general termsGjberalis ae ig 1¢ heart of discussions about democracy is a tension beeween these two strands. Furthermore, there is a moral and ethnocentric dimension to discussions of democracy. Who, for example, can argue against democracy? The practice of democracy, institutions of democracy and the ideas often associaced with democracy ~ freedom of speech, assembly, protest, the right to elect political representatives and protection from arbiter power — are ideas and values that many of us simply take for granted as politically and morally right, proper and sensible ways to organise contemporary political sociery. This moral, perhaps ethnocentric (and certainly system-centtic) perspective extends to politicians, business leaders, social and political activists and others, and it would seem that “We are all democrats now’. Democracy is enjoying a period of significant global popularity, and the past fifteen years or so have witnessed a significant increase in the number of democracies in the world. In many ways the history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has been about the struggle for and the extension of democracy culminating in the ‘great victory’ of democracy in 1989 to 1992 with the collapse of the Rerlin Wall and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. But to present the history of democracy as a slow but ultimately successful struggle between arbitrary and unrepresentative power (e.g. the monarchy or state socialism) and representative and accountable government is to over-simplify both the idea and the history of democratisation. There are @ aumber of questions and issues thar remain unresolved, For example, actual levels of democratic accountability remain unclear in some cases; in others theRICHARD HUGGINS institutions of democracy appear to be in decline, and levels of participation ed opt in elections and interest in politics in general are apparently not what they | Gabi? °F yor should be. Some commentators have identified a significant crisis of social J+ } ».Slte 4" capital and public trust in government (Putnam 1995; Fukuyama 2001) and | * adh others lament voter apathy, media salaciousness and the re-emergence of the |. Qyler at’ ‘tyranny of the majority’ in the populist politics of, for example, Silvio Berlusconni in Italy, George Bush in the USA or Herder in Austria. In general iF \, oF terms some commentators, while noting the apparent popularity of democracy %. ee Meo 3 minimal fom of procedural pois, lament he acral por heh of dey argue for a significant reappraisal of the practice of this form | Qeesot““1" of polities (Crouch 2000: 1). Other major questions remain unresolved altogether. For example, the nature of democracy and democratic accountability in the European Union remains hugely problematic especially in regard to the discreditable position of the European Commission in 1999 (George and Bache 2001). Furthermore, the transformation to democracy in some of the former Soviet Republics — for example, Russia or Belarus ~ and the countries of Eastern Europe, the former-— Yugoslavia and Albania looks less straightforward than in the early 1990s (Gill oo be and Marwick 2000; Karsiaficas 2001; Brown 2001). el. NNiodeon + get . Others have identified the : in forms and practice, around ~~ Jon scacg DO 1¢ world. against point at ey see as the collusion between big *°” Te multinational corporations, transnational capital and organisations of multi- | lateral co-operation, G8, IMF, WTO and the EU in privileging the needs and commercial benefits of capitalism over the rights, freedoms and livelihoods of citizens (Klein 2000; Monbiot 2000; and see the SCHNEWS website if at ). The images of powerful political leaders ale ee bchind fences and heavily protected from protesters, coupled with the violence visited on the protesters by police — for example, in Genoa in July 2001 with Fasht> eck by sb a the killing of the activist protestor Carlo Giuliani ~ all add to the sense that ees °F the democratic rights of ‘the people’ have been fundamentally eroded by global * ort Other commentators have pointed to the growing sense of cosmopolitan democracy afforded by globalisation and the coming together of people, across traditional boundaries, to act in democratic ways (Archibughi et al. 1998) Indeed, even the act of global protest hints at alternative futures for global jo oss democratic action, , Whe : Furthermore, if some have spoken of a crisis of democratic participation Me 4 gdhaal= 9° de paceet others have highlighted che potential ofthe technologies ofglobalistion—for example, new media and information and communications technology — to enhance, develop and even redefine democracy in form and practice (Axford and Huggins 2001). On 2 more local level civil liberties activists point to the erosion of democratic freedoms through the increased use of CCTV monitoring and the enforced testing for narcotic drugs of those arrested by police forces. On the other hand, activists point to the reinvigoration of local politics in terms 161Protesters at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Prague, 2000 162, DEMOCRACY AND DEI CRATISATION of popular protest agzinst road building and environmental damage, and the Positive linking of local and global issues through initiatives such 2s Agenda 21 (Mason 1999), On a personal level, issues related to the body and the governance of the Selfin terms of sexual identity, reproductive tights, the right ro life and possibly to self-determination of death become increasingly important as medical technology facilitates greater intervention in the biology of human existence. Genetic engineering and genetic modification may stil be developing sciences bucthe implications for human beings and for traditional notions of rights and the moral and legal frameworks through which decisions and policy are formulated are clearly being stretched by advances in medical and genetic technology (Wiliams and Bendelow 1998; Holliday and Hassard 2001). Iris clear tha: there are significant challenges to the structures, processes and practice of democracy in contemporary society. Indeed, for myriad reasons, commentators argue that we are witnessing several transformations of democ. racy (McGrew 1997), and itis important to ask what the ewenty-first century holds for both the form and practice of democracy (Beck 1999). We can see then that the concept of democracy is one that is very much 3t the centre of (global) political thought and action at the beginning of the new millennium, and that the discussion extends from the very local ~ ultimately the individual self to the global system.RICHARD HUGGINS f= Conceptualising democracy: the search for a _ Sefinition ‘As we have already indicated, the concept of democracy is in some senses both clear — in a common-sense way — and somewhat less clear when we get down to actually analysing what we think constitutes democratic form and practices. ‘At the very least we might expect democracy to mean that some form of political power is exercised by the people over their political leaders — but for ‘many this is a small amount of democracy. But this is ~ in the main — what people mean when they talk of democracy. eee sera ee pet vention some ways this conception of liberal democracy Fees fy asociated "erie deo ‘which the power of the people is represented by others within institutions and legal or constitutionally prescribed limits. Few of us actually participate in day-to-day democratic politics in terms of deliberation or direct action. We rely instead on a protective and accountable set of procedures and rules for the distribution and exercise of political power and economic and social resources in our communities. In this section we will work through some of the key ideas and concepts —— of democracy and explore different models of democracy. However, it is important to note that these models often overlap, share many central ideas and may not be as different from each other as we at first think. Often differences between different models of democracy may be of degree rather than stark difference. _ Origins of democracy _ The concept and term ‘democracy’ originates from the Greek concept of Demes as che people and, in this sense, translated readily into the idea that democracy means rule by the people. In the Athenian city-state all citizens were involved in the democratic process through debate, deliberation and participation. Ie is this model of democracy that is often held up as both an ideal and an example of how democracy should function. You can see below an outline cere Arnoce (1982) The of Aristotle's main features of democracy taken from his study Politics, Winer tieorawork completed in 323 BC. Penguin. Aristotle's features of democracy 1. Elections to office by all from among all. 2. Rule of all over each and of each by turns over all. | r | continued 163DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION continued [———— ina, > Offices filled by lot, either al or at any rate those not calling for experience | or skill | ‘4 Notenure of office dependent on the possession ofa property qualification | or only on the lowest possible. 5. Short terms for all offices or for as many as possible 5: Allto ston juries chosen from all and adjudicating on all or most matters 7- The assembly asthe sovereign authority in everything, or atleast the mace | | | | | | | | __ Important matters, offcalshaving no sovereign power over ary, or cnee | ! few as possible, 5 Payment for services, in the assembly, inthe law-courts, and inthe offices, | 's regular fer all, ) i ® Asbich weak an eduction aethe defing mats ofclgerey othe | opposites, low birth, low incomes, and mechanical occupations, are | regarded as typical of democracy. | 10. No official has perpetual tenure, | (Aristotle 1992; 363-43) (323 ec} | | There are some important limits to this model of democracy which, though advocating participation and direct involvement ofthe citizen s also based the back of a slave economy. I think ic immediatly alerts us to cerain tafe of democracy and to some ofits faws, and you may want to thiak about why this model retains such appeal. This model and praise of Athenian or cast | democracy is certainly a durable one, Representative democracy Repre: /e democracy A form of democracy in which = a dcizens elect polities! If classical democracy does re; pean though periodic which citizens were directly and Popul ceons hen democracy does not tend to work represent the people within a sem of govtmment testi! 38 democratic exhibit forms of representative democracy (mou readily iden- (Gccxampleinspuiamend or tified as liberal democracy) in which inl sade ct forms of democratic local (for example, ina loal politics are practised. I i authority of city council) level i Hoden Dercerey to act Tised Jomawcey Acthe if to 5 tepraedhee Jenacreey, | 1ctacies political freedom and par- Ecipation tends to be measured in terms of individual freedoms, civil liveries and political rights. These include freedom of association, movement, speech, information, voting :ights and freedom of conscience. There ae consiceatle limits to the levels of political participation and direct involvenece ck the People in representative democracies. Many people are critical of thes lin and alternatives are readily sought. One such alternative is deliberons democracy. Regma hls Densweey £ Delibenchee Donec a ——wRICHARD HUGGINS ican Huis Deliberative democracy Deliberative democracy in its simplest terms ‘refers to a conception of democratic government that secures a central place for reasoned discussion in politcal life’ (Cooke 2000: 947) and this way of thinking about democracy has become quite popular in recent years, with significant contributions bei made to the discussion by major theorists such as John Rawls (1997) and Jusgen Habermas (1996). It has also been the case that this way of think- ing about democracy has led to experiments in practical developments in local and national government (for example, the use of citizens’ panels and jusies, Internet discussion boards and local referenda on community issues (Axford and Huggins 2001b; Smith and Wales 2000; Woodward 2000). new spaces and channels for policical As a consequence the concept is enjoying popular currency among democratic theorists, with a number arguing for the remodelling of politics long deliberative lines (Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Habermas 1996). For Elster (1998) deliberative democracy contains two constituent elements. Oe the democratic element, is the participation in collective decision- ing by those affected by the decision, Peseconwh the deliberative element, Deliberative democracy A form of democracy which stresses the ‘participation of the people in collective decision-making through a process of rational and considered deliberation. ICT: informasion and communication technologies, Vi beaine Demevees, confers fue chemete: refers to the inclusion in the decision-making process of deliberation over _@ Parbriguhm ix Ouletie Jectsion~ means and ends by participants ‘committed to the values of rationality and impartialiey’ (Elster 1998: 8). For Fishkin (1991) there are chree elements in the deliberative process: first, the exchange of political messages between individuals; second, the opportunity to reflect on these messages; and third, the enabling messages to be processed interactively and tested against rival arguments. The idea of deliberative democracy is currendy attracting considerable areention, and a number of commentators argue that deliberative techniques could be used to reinvigorate contemporary democracy. One example of how deliberative projects might be contributing to the transformation of the political process in Britain is UK Citizens Online Democracy (UKCOD), citizen-created service designed to promote online discussion and information dissemination. This project has been running since 1996 and has involved the creation of discussion forums at local and national levels on a range of issues, These have included local taxation rates for local councils, European Monetary Union and a major project for the 1997 general election in Britain Which involved discussion on constitutional reform and transport policy. Participation in the election project was high, from both public and politicians, The leaders of the three main parties and politicians from fourteen other partes competing in the elections were involved in online discussion with the public (Coleman 1997). UKCOD aims to increase information and debate among the citizenry, but to what extent such experiments representa significant development of democracy or an increase in the quality of democracy is open to question. eng Sy Ae cpeeted by He etioion, @ Dethentin cloned Dhtbendin dechagen com covticl + Ati) contenpeney denacry 165Direct demccracy A form of democracy in which all members Of the politcal community participate diecly in the Processes of decision-making 166 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION Citizens’ panels - emerging deliberative democracy ___0F sophisticated political marketing. - Ikback in Oxford City, UK In the|City of Oxford the City Council, Thames Valley Police, County Council and the Area Health Authority have established a large citizen body which is Consulted through extensive postal questionnaires and telephone interviews on a regular Basis about services, local information, policy and legislative proposals. This system, called Talkback, involves nearly 1000 participants who are representative of the City’s general population and one-third of the group is rotated every year. The response rates to the surveys are high, around 65 per Cent, and the authorities involved use the information gathered in a number of strategic ways. Now, such a process can be seen as simply a matter of gaining ‘feedback on the services provided by local authorities to the local tax-payer but this may underestimate the possible reflexivity in the process, Furthermore the design of the questionnaire includes both direct questions on services and more complex questions about the power and responsibilities of bodies and organ- isations within the local area and the institutional and politcal organisation of the local authorities. One survey attempted to explore concepts of and local Participation in civil society much along the lines of an exploration of socal capital. The question is does such a panel constitute merely a consultation exercise or does it offer an example of a deliberative procedure in the making? Direct democracy While classical, direct democracy appears not to be a viable form of political system for mass societies, some commentators have noted recent trends in political organisation and practice which they maintain might constitute some form of direct democracy. Such trends are related to the development of media cultures and the rise of the media-adept politician. However, in general, commentators are critical of the central role of the media and media professional to the process of political communication and representation, and argue that this development has led to a corruption of the political process in favour of individual leaders and image-based, personality-led politics. Further- more, the ability of political leaders to use the media to bypass traditional institutions of government, such as legislative assemblies, and organisations of political mobilisation — for example, political parties ~ has strengthened the position of the leader at the expense of democratic accountability and the integrity of the political process. The increased use of public opinion polling and other methods of gauging popular sentiment creates an even stronger link between the personalised, charismatic leader and the public. The result, some argue, is the creation of a negative form of direct democracy or an ‘authoritarian pseudo-democracy based on plebiscitary opinion poll-ism and direct democracy-ism’ (Poli 1998) or a ‘listening dictatorship’ (Donovan 1998).RICHARD HUGGINS a Commentators frequently point to recent developments in Italian politics as an example ofthese trends where the fragmentation ‘of the party system and the ae of charismatic leaders ~ such as Bossi and Di Pierro and the emergence of the newspaper Forza Italia as 2 vehicle for the political aspiration of Silvio Feslusconi appear to provide evidence of chis new form of direct democracy. Berlusconi and Forza lala’ reliance on slick and efficient electoral machine, Pievision promotion, market research and a core of senior managers from Beslusconi’s Fininvese business empire (McCarthy 1996; Seisselberg, 1996) appeass to be a clear example ofthe worst excess of politics in media culeures app pcan lead to a form of ‘democratic carism! (Donovan 1998). i t t er SBOE estingly such arguments echo Alesis de Tocqueville's observaroe® Pint democracy in his book Democracy in America (1954, first published in 41835), which argued that democratic politics — by giving POWet and voice to the masses—can create a in which minority rights can be threatened by the intolerant ror commentators like Barber the ve ent emergence of leader-dominated plebisctary democracy underpinned ty a rabid media culcure of talk-radio and ‘scream television (Barber 1995) ryalts in democratic values being displaced by populism and demagogy: Teecems, then, chat there are a number of different and competing models ofdemocracy. As stated cali inthis chapter, che contested narore of democ- country level of democratic polities and participation will be conditional upon the model of democracy operating as the context for that assessinené The more complex developed and elaborate the model, che less the ‘number of countries that will or can be ‘assessed as democratic. Figure 5.1 outlines another, more deciled classification of different models of democracy. i THINK POINT “ry working through these models and rating your wm our aint ther. When you have done Te Fjou can cecde what ype of model describes your county’ polis best. ards a mini imal definition of democracy ocan be seen there are a number of different conceptions and models of democracy available us. Some overlap, while others are radically different and incompatible. Like most thingsin politics judgement and value will depend on your world view, your political socialisation, political culture and political Dieect Versace co feed 4 tealenrse 2. & tymany oF the mspaty ire vital element of any analysis of the conceps, and any assessmet ofa Key to: R.A. Dahl (1961) Who Govern? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press Key text: K Manx (1985) The Communist Manifest, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Key text J. S. Mill (1972) Unitarian, Liberty Repraensaive Governmens Landon: Dent. Key text JJ. Rousseau (1974) ‘The Social Contract, Harmondsworth: Penguin. ee 167DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION Model of Justification and key features Key thinker and democracy key text Classical Citizens enjoy political equality, direct participation in legislative and judicial functions, Assembly of Citizens is sovereign, Aristotle, 384-322 ac, The Politics, Protective Citizens require protection from Sema Rasc ‘those who govern and from each | 1754 1996 Sa other. Sovereignty lies in the people | Federalist, 1788. but is vested in representatives, regular elections, secret ballot, Party competition, centrality of constitutionalism, state and civil society separate. Developmental Participation is both necessary and beneficial for the development of an informed, engaged and mature citizenry. Popular sovereignty, Universal franchise, representative government, constitutioral checks and balances, especially in relation to individual rights and freedoms, extensive participation in al levee sn seuare i, of government, 1806-73, Considerations on Representative Government, 1861 Radical Citizens should enjoy political and economic equality which will facilitate equal freedom and dependence in the process of collective development. Political system characterised by a division of legislative and executive functions, direct participation of citizens in the legislature through public meetings, unanimity on public issues desirable, executive positions in the hands of Jcanrlacaues Rousseau, ‘magistrates or administrators, Contract, Tee executive appointed either by direct election oF by lot. ean ane ace 168RICKARD HUGGINS ee Model of Justification and key features democracy | Direct Free development of all can only be (communism) achieved through the free development of each. All forms of government, state and politics replaced by self-regulation, all public affairs governed collectively, consensus, removal of all coercive forces and replacement with setf- monitoring, distribution of all administrative tasks by rotation or election. Pluralism. Secures government by minorities, which in turn underpins political liberty. Focus on citizen and political rights, systematic checks and balances between the different elements of the state, competitive party system, diverse range of interest groups, government. mediates between different groups and demands, constitutional rules supported by political culture. Focus on the selection of and competition between skilled and competent political elite. Competition within this elite acts as a check on political leaders Parliamentary government with 2 strong executive, party competition, dominant parties, political leadership, central, independent and professional bureaucracy, constitutional and practical limits on the range of political decisions, Figure 5.1 Models of democracy Key thinker and key text Karl Marx, 1818-83, The Communist Manitesto, 1847, R. A Dahl, 1961, Who Governs? Democracy ‘and Power in an ‘American City, New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press. ‘Max weber, 1864-1920, Politics as 2 Vocation, 169170 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION This ‘minimal definition’ leads us back to the notions of representative and liberal democracy and the limitations of this model. However, it does afford us some opportunity to make comparisons between different countries and political systems, and this minimal definition is pretty much on offer as a global model for democratisation and the future global democracy. We will explore the concept, process and practice of democratisation in the next section. If in the old days, the USSR had dumped its stock of gold on the world market, that market would have been completely destabilized. If the Eastern bloc countries were to put back into circulation the vast stock of freedom they have been keeping on ice, they would similarly destabilize the very fragile metabolism of Western Values, which requires that freedom no longer manifest itself as action but as a virtual and consensual form of interaction, not as drame, but as the universal pyschodrama of liberalism. A sudden injection of freedom as a lived relationship — as violent and active transcendence, 2s Idea would be catastrophic in every way for our air-conditioned rediscribution of values. (Jean Baudrillard (1994) The Illusion of the End, ‘Cambridge, Polity Press: 30) ‘Taking even the minimal definition above of full adult suffrage and free clections then, democracy as an actual lived and experienced mode of organ- ising and practising politics is not actually very long lived. Even ‘old? democracies such as the United Kingdom have had full adult suffrage for only the past seventy years or so and many established democracies have excluded particular groups from political rights until very recently, for example African Americans in the USA or women in Switzerland. Furthermore, if we consider more radical or extensive models of democracy, then it might be more accurate to talk of an s section is al process o jon which appears to be one of the most important processes currently observable in the contemporary world. Since the collapse of commuaism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union there has been a I think it may be reasonably argued that the process of democratisation extends well beyond the former communist states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It includes many countries that do not fall so readily into the post-communist group. This includes South America, which has scen substantial democratic developments in the past decade, and Africa, with the particularly dramaticRICHARD HUGGINS democratisation of the Republic of South Africa after apartheid and many sere pars of te world In Western Europe, countries such as Spain, Portugal oer Gree have moved towards fully functioning democracies in the past “funy years and — perhaps more controversially in terms of democratic, civil ir political rights ~ the process of democratisation is one that Northern ses gpd is curzendy struggling ro complete. (You may notice that the Freedom Home Survey on p. 174 excludes Northern Ireland from the calculation of poliia feedom for the United Kingdom) Furthermore, the process appears Pepe continually accelerating as Pakistan's current military leader, General Perver Musharraf, announced on 14 August 2001 thar Pakistan would look to retoablish democracy with the holding of provincial and federal elections ‘garting on 1 October 2002. From chese examples democratisation may be seen as a global process which isaffoning a number of countries and appeats co be a global trend. As You Gt ‘ee from Table 5.1, some measures of democratisation suggest that the world srexperiencing a significant and general tend of democratisaron. Table 5.1 The global trend in democratisation Period Free Partly free Nox free 1990-1991 65 50 50 oO 1995-1996 76 a 53 2000-2001 86 58 48 “Source Freedom House, 2000, Freedom in she World survey, available at “evr freedomhouse.org> iow, assessment of democratisation obviously be conditional on the type of definition of democracy that is employed, and itis fair to say chat most measures of democratisation rely on a n-of d i ‘Using such criteria commentators a 0 ider fg wentieth-century trend sf democratisation across the globe. Thus Potter (1997) highlights that in 1975 at least 68 per cent of countries throughout the world were authoritarian, but by 1995 this figure had dropped to 26 per cent (Potter 1997: 1). This process cf democratisation began in the 1970s in Southern Europe, spread to South ‘America and parts of Asia in che 1980s and into parts of Aftica, Eastern Europe aa ike former Soviet Union in the 1990s. Huntington (1991) locates these recent trends in more long-term general waves of democratisation which are outlined below. ocracy that is a liberal, rep Key text: S. Huntington (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Lave Tuenith Century, Norman, Oka, and London: ‘University of Oklahoma Pres. nm172 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION cC ee Samuel Huntington's waves of democratisation First, long wave 1828-1926 Including: USA, Britain, France, Italy, Argentina and British overseas dominions First, reverse wave 1922-42 Including: aly, Germany and Argentina Including: Italy, West Germany, india, Japan and Israel Second, reverse wave 1958-1975 Including: Argentina, Chile and Brazil Third wave 1974 to present Including: Spain, Portugal, Chile, Argentina, Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe (Adapted from Huntington 1991) i | | | | second short wave 1943-62 | | | | | | | | | i For Huntington waves of democratisation are defined as ‘a group of transitions from non-democratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction during that period’ (Huntington 1991: 15). Interestingly, Huntington's waves of democratisation are accompanied by reverse waves in which countries that had democratised cease to be democratic and adope differ- ent forms of authoritarian rule such as Fascism (Italy), Nazism (Germany) and military dictatorship (Chile). This tendency alerts us to the need for democracies to reach a stable and consolidated state in which the long-term stability of democratic forms of government and politics are secure, stable and legitimate, q d look at Table 5.2, which offers a comparative summary of levels of freedom in different countries, indicates that, on these measures, the process of democratisation in Poland or Slovenia has been very different to that in Russia or Belarus. mele . If we accept that by certain definitions democratisation has increased at the level of systemic politics, it seems reasonable to ask why has this has been the case. In this section we will look briefly at some of the main explanations of the process of democratisation. roaches sed to Joach ing democratisation Potter (1997) identifies three theoretical ap, explain patterns of democratisation. The first iRICHARD HUGGINS “shich emphasises 2 number of social and economic factors that are seen as Ae gccesary for explaining the exitence of consolidated democracies or as _ Tale of Eroron® deudlapred secessary for democratisation co succzed. process of democratisation tcal elites, the political choices and strategies they ment to democratisation explain the success (or otherwise) of transitions ‘democracy. The third approach is ae ‘which emphasi ‘Ghanges in the structures of power that are favourable to the process of democratisation. mphasis is on how demotratisation is related to vm historical processes of changing social structures of class, state and — national power, and therefore the path to liberal democracy is an outcome - of changes in these structures rather chan other factors (Porter 1997). ‘All these explanations give significant emphasis to the relationship between economic development and democratic politics. Given this, itis pethaps not Surprising that some commentators argue that what democratisation really means is commercialisation and capitalism and not freedom or genuine democracy. Ic is arguable that this approach also explains some of the apparent disatisfaction and disenchantment that now accompanies the post-1989_ expetience of democracy (see e.g, Lagos 2001; Rose 2001). For Smith, the meaning of democratisation has been ‘dilueed, such that it often signifies nothing more than consumerism, free market polices and the most superficial liberal-democratic electoral reforms (Smith 1998: 5). And data from some ‘countries indicates that new democracies have a long way to go to reach consolidation and legitimacy in the eyes of the people. In part this reflects the significant social costs of eransformation and democratisation, and itis also easy to overlook the considerable human costs of the processes discussed in this chapter. “While considerable commentary is extended to the process of democra- tisation at the level of the nation-state (and, as we shall see, atthe level of the tlobal political order), ie is also important to consider democratisation as 2 process that is going on throughout other organisations and reinvigorating Jemocratic form and practice in established or consolidated democracies. In the next section we discuss the possible emergence of deliberative models of democratic participation as an outcome of the local responses to Agenda 21 which is an example of che ongoing process of democratisation in United Kingdom. Another example might be Anthony Giddens work on The Third Way (1998) and the growing interest in notions of stakeholders that can. be identified in 2 number of political programmes around the world. For Giddens the politics of the ‘old left’ (classical social democracy) and neoliberalism present starkand ultimately unsustainable political programmes. In The Third Way Giddens argues that given the current state of the world a 173174 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION Table 5.2 Comparative measures of freedom —ss Trend Country Political Civil Freedom rights liberties rating — Afghanistan 7 7 Not fee A Albania 4 5 Partly free Argentina 1 2 Free Belarus 6 6 Not free Belgium 1 2 Free Benin 2 2 Free China (PRC) 7 6 Not free Cecch Republic 1 2) Free Dominican Republic 2 2 Free East Timor 6 3 Free Fiji 6 3 Partly free Finland 1 1 Free Y Guatemala 3 4 Pardly free India 2 3 Free Y Inn 6 6 Nor fice Y Jamaica 2 2 Free Japan 1 2 Free y Kenya 6 5 Not free Kuwaic 4 5 Partly free Libya 7 7 Nor free Macedonia 4 3 Party free Mongolia 2 3 Free Y Mozambique 3 4 Partly free Y Namibia 2 3 Free New Zealand 1 1 Free Pakistan 6 5 Nor free 4 Paraguay 4 3 Partly fee Poland 1 2 Free Romania 2 2 Free Russia 5 5 Partly free San Marino 1 1 Free Saudi Arabia 7 7 Nor free Singapore 5 5 Partly free Slovenia 1 2 Free Suriname 1 2 Free Sweden 1 1 Free ‘Taiwan (Republic of China) 1 2 Free Tajikstan 6 6 Not fiee Turkey 4 5 Partly free Turkmenistan 7 7 Free Tavalu 1 1 Free 4 United Kingdom 1 2 Free United States 1 1 Free Unbekisran 7 6 Not free Venezuela 3 5 Partly free $y freeRICHARD HUGGINS Nn she World's an eration of politcal rghs and ch ibres im she wold hat Fred lous bas cai sine 1973 Plead righ ae te formation of political parties Fret cena gift range of voter choke, compet in pen competition and can be elected tron of powet. Ci berssinchde ees and proven for ligious, echni, economic, sepa, gener and fly igh, eon ficodoms and fesdams of the press, belief and soe The sare ras ech country ona seven-point sale fer bot political rights and a eric with 1 being che mest fice and 7 the last, The wold is divides ni ‘three road Sa: ree= I-3,Pary Bice =3 5-5 and Not res = 55-7. See Piano ans uddington 2001 Sue See Freedom in he World ~ Freedom House: crore: reodombouss. one Diepetmee Veer Soot sane se hein eer ceneval of fOcal democracy b required, one chat offers a third way between Jemecney and Nee hibeoct neoliberalism and classical social democracy. For Giddens old-style social Jena democracy allowed free marker capitalism to create many of the problems Marx " jdentified as characteristic of this form of socio-economic organisation while also encouraging extensive state intervention in the ecgnomy, social organ- a go and individual lif. On the ocher hand]neoliberas hvoured unsesticted © [~~ = — market forces, a minimal state, contraction of the welfare state and traditional social values in relation to the family and other aspects of social behaviour (Giddens 1998). ‘Giddens identifies five dilemmas which all political thinking has to account for and deal with, These are: 1 Globalisation — what is it and what are is effects? > Individualism — to what extent are societies experiencing more ——————— individualism? 3 Lefeand Right — the disintegration of significant distinctions in politics. 4 Political agency — to what extent are traditional mechanisms of democracy in decline? 5, Ecological problems—how can these be integrated into political programmes? For Giddens the answer is to build a third way on the values of equality, protec- Key text A. Giddens (1998) The eth vulnerable freedom as autonomy, no rights without esponsbiliies, #747 ‘Cambridge: Polity tno authority without democracy, cosmopolitan pluralism and philosophic conservatism. These values underpin 2 politics of the third way: | ‘The Third Way Programme | | | ‘The radical centre ‘The new democratic state ~ the state without enemies ‘Active civil society The democratic family | ‘The new mixed economy | Equality as inclusion | | Positive welfare | ‘The social investment state | | ‘The cosmopolitan nation | | Cosmopolitan democracy | (Giddens 1998) _——— 175176 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION Giddens’ model has received a lot of attention, and the term ‘third way’ is used by politicians, social commentators, policy-makers and academics around the world. However, it remains to be seen what a third-way politics would actually look like and how effective, in terms of reinvigorating democracy, it would actually be. The crit ms and democratisation is of democracy and Democracy ~ as a political practice of decision-making that requires the participation of all those affected by the outcome of the decision ~ is not being practised on the Left because the voices of women, gays/lesbians! bisexualsftransgenders, and people of colour are not being heeded. (Greta Gaard, Green Party of Minnesota, ‘Toward a Radical Democracy | | | on the Left’, SynthesisiRegeneration, 13 (Spring, 1997): 1) | | | | | My theme is the poor health of democracy. Many will regard this as a strange pre-occupation at a time when democracy could be said to be enjoying a world- historical peak. But this peak relates to the minimal though admittedly free elections based on universal adult suffrage. | want to go beyond such minimalism and appraise our current democratic practices in the light of an admittedly ambitious maximal model, (Colin Crouch (2000) Post-Democracy, London, Fabian Society: 1) | | absolutely vital criterion of democracy as the choice of government in | | | | | l ‘The fundamental critique of democracy lies with the expression of democracy as liberal democratic ideas and institutions and the apparently fundamental association of these ideas with (unrestrained) capitalism, particularly since that capitalism has become more multinational, corporate and global. In this section we will consider four main critics of liberal democracy: feminism, republicanism, radicalism, environmentalism. Feminist critiques of liberal democracy ‘Asan be seen from the Greta Gaard quotation above, feminism offers a strong. critique of democracy, especially liberal democracy as practised and advocated in many states. As we can see from Gaard’s comments, feminists are critical of the way in which liberal democracy fails to recognise the voices or political and social claims for participation of (among others) women. One of the most important contributions to this debate has been by the political theorist Carole Pateman who has argued against narrow, liberal, representative democratic form and practice for the past three decades and hasRICHARD HUGGINS encouraged a useful discussion among political theorists and writers on Gemocracy about the crucial limitations of democracy in relation to the participation of women in politcal sociery (Carter and Stokes 1998). Pareman’s work outlines a significant concern with the effective social and political marginalisation and subordination of women in liberal democracy. Pateman’s key contribution to this debate may be found in her book The Sexual Contract (1988) in which she argues that women are effectively consigned to the private sphere of social activity (principally the ‘home’) and that they tend to be dominated by men in both private and public spheres. For Pateman inequalities in the distribution of political power along gender lines are critically left unchallenged by many forms of democracy and democratic participation needs to be extended into the private sphere of life and especially into the organisation of the family. Pateman conceptualises liberal society as a series of male clubs ~ usually, as Virginia Woolf points out in Three Guineas, distinguished by their own costumes and uniforms — that — embrace parliament, the courts, political parties, the military and police, universities, workplaces, trade unions, public (private) schools, exclusive clubs and popular leisure clubs, from all of which women are excluded or to which they are mere auxiliaries. (Pateman 1988: 210) ‘This critique extends to the study of politics where Pateman notes that it is ‘frequently overlooked how recently democratic or universal suffrage was estab- ~~ lished. Political scientists have remained remarkably silent about the struggle for womanhood suffrage . .. and the political meaning and consequences of enfranchisement’ (Pateman 1988: 211). ‘While Pateman’s work has been criticised for stressing a universal and essentialist conception of women and sexual relations (Sullivan 1998), her work marks an important contribution to the debate about democracy and remains highly relevant. A recent special edition of the Journal of Democracy on Women and Democracy notes the continued centrality of cultural obstacles to equal representation for women in politics, Norris and Ingelhart argue that a fundamental problem facing the worldwide process of democratization is the continued lack of gender equality in political leadership. The basic facts are not in dispute: Today women represent only one in seven parliamentarians, one in ten cabinet ministers, and, at the apex of power, one in 20 heads of state or government. (Norris and Ingelhare 2001: 126) ———— nnn [THINK POINT 1 What do you make ofthis feminist crtique of liberal democracy? Do you think that there are structutl or cultural Barres tothe participation of women in polis? Key text: C. Paterman (1988) The Seeual Contract, Cambridge: Polity Press. m7178 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION 5 ‘If yu do na, haw do you account for the statics to which Noms and Ingelhat daw attention in the above quotation? Republican critiques of liberal democracy Republican critiques of liberal democracy stress the valuc and importance of the wider community and some notioa of pubic good over the supremacy of the individual in terms of politcal goals and outcomes-Like the concept of democracy, republicanism has a long history and can also be traced back to classical timess for example, Cicero's (106-43) The Republic offers a defence of republican government, In the 1960s civic republicanism was particularly fashionable, and one thinker who is associated with this mode of thinking about democracy and the politics of social organisation is Hannah Arendt. For Arend modern liberal, representative cemocracy denied the importance of public happiness and public freedom, and conceptualised politics as a kind of burden best pursued by the few and nor the rest of us. In her book On Revolution, Arend likens representative government to oligarchy and axgucs That representative government has in fact become oligarchic govern- ‘ment is true enough, though nor in the classical sense of rule by the few in the interests of the few; what we today call democracy is a form of government where the few rule, at least supposedly, in the interest of the ‘many. This government is democratic in that popular welfare and private happiness are its chief goals; but it can be called oligarchic in the sense thar public happiness and public freedom become the privilege of the few. (Arende 1990: 269) Arendt’ answer was to increase the levels of and opportunities for participation in democratic politics through the creation of council democracy inspired by the type of political organisations that emerged during revolutionary periods in French (French Revolution or the Paris Commune) and Russian hiseory (the revolutions of 1917) and in Hungary in 1956. For Arendt such models offered an alternative to parliamentary, party-based political systems that, she felt, systematically limiced the degree to which citizens could actively or usefully participate in the political process. Eran pow How workable do you think this model of democracy? Do you think that participation, in ts own tight, is valuable for democracy? __Radical critiques of liberal democracy _ One of the most radical critiques of liberal democracy may be found in Marxist thought which argues tha liberal, parliamentary democracy is simply a part ofRICHARD HUGGINS rn cs the systematic exploitation of the workers. For Marxists like Ralph Miliband, puliamentary democracy isa sham by which the workers are pacified by the fmage of participation and democracy while actual power relations — inequalities between tich and poor, between the politically weak and politically ‘rong, are left unchallenged. However, Marxism asa way of thinking about and analysing politics has not had an easy time since the early 1990s, and such gnalysis has been subject to considerable revision and amendment. The ‘Lef” has had to reconsider a number of central ideas, beliefs and theories in the past few decades and, consequently, radical critiques of liberal democracy from the ‘Lefé have become sophisticated, Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau provide an interesting example of what ‘Smith has called a ‘radical democratic imaginary’ (1998) and we will consider their approach ro democracy briefly here. Commenting on the rise of social ‘movernents and shifts in che political landscape, Laclau and Mouffe note, The new forms of social conflict have . .. thrown into crisis theoretical and political frameworks . . . [that] correspond to the classical discourses of the Left, and the characteristic modes in which it has conceived the agents of social change, the structuring of social spaces, and the privileged points for the unleashing of historical transformations (Laclau and Mouffe, quoted in Smith 1998: 2) ‘As 2 consequence Laclau and Mouffe note that socialism is in crisis and that the systematic and universal narrative of socialism fails to account for the politicisation of new and different areas of social life and new forms of political conflict. Laclau and Mouffe draw from a wide range of traditions of political thought which includes Gramsci, liberal democracy itself, post-structualism, phenomenology, psycholoanalysis and Foucault (Carter and Stokes 1998; Smith 1998), to argue for a conception of democracy that stresses radical, pluralist practice and political activism. Pluralism is radical only to the extent that each term of this plurality finds within itself the principle of its own validity, without this having to be sought in a transcendent or underlying positive ground for the hierarchy of meaning of them all and the source and guarantee of their legitimacy. And this radical pluralism is democratic to the extent that the auto- constitutivity of each one of its terms is the result of displacements of the egalitarian imaginary. (Laclau and Mouffe, quoted in Smith 1998: 167) For Laclau and Mouffe pluralism, difference and autonomy are the keys to radical democratic politics and are reflected in the proliferation of social movements which occupy the contemporary political landscape. These social movements are accommodated by neither the political theory of traditional socialise thought nor the insticutionalised politics of liberal democracy. Rather, they offer a radical alternative in their own right. 179‘The Stop Esso Campaign highlights key environmental ‘concerns about the ineectiveness of liberal denocracy to protect the environment. 180 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION Environmental critiques of liberal democracy Environmentalism, like democracy is term that possesses a range of meanin, and can be contested. Also like democracy, itis a concept that possesses ales ethical as well as political dimension. Despite (or perhaps because of) ix diversity, environmentalism has presented a number of challenges to exist models of democratic politics and, like some of the other critiques mentioned above, one of the key developments has been the emphasis on diverscy of values, interests and non-institutional forms of protest and political action that have contributed to the re-evaluation of the usefulness of existing models of democracy. In particular, environmentalism has drawn attention to both the furure interests and environmental well-being of future generations and the significance of non-human species of life (Mason 1999). The range of porenta] and actual threats to the environment are considerable (for a survey sex Brown 2001), and environmentalism offers a range of responses and critiques of liberal democracy, At the more radical end of the environmental spectrum ccocentries are deeply ambivalent about liberal democracy. They are frustrated by the slowness of majoritarian electoral politics and what they see as the populist or pro- business stance of many leaders, such as George Bush manifested in his recurrent refusals to support environmental protection measures such as the Kyoto Climate Change Conference agreement of 1997. Ecocentrics advocate a more participatory democratic politics in which small-scale communities are the focus of political action and in which eco- centric values are employed to put protection of the environment at the centre of the political process. But there are potential contradictions here between the expression of human free will and the moral requirement of protecting the planet and non-human life forms that, taken to extreme, could themselves be profoundly illiberal and anti-democratic. Ecocentric conceptions are only one of many environmental approaches and ctitiques of liberal democracy and to focus on these does not do justice to the range and sophistication of green political thought. The relationship between environmental concerns and democracy is clearly an area of growing signi- ficance, and students of politics need to examine these developments closely. ‘There are, for example, interesting developments around the globalisation of environmental rights through the growth of international laws and agreements which focus on the protection of the environment. These include the Rio Earth Summit (1992), the Kyoto Summic (1997) and UN initiatives such as the Keentini Report which outline key environmental dimensions to political right including the right to information about the environment, the right to receive and disseminate information about the environment, the right to participation in environmental planning and decision-making processes, the right 0 freedom of association for the purpose of protecting the environment and the tight to effective remedies for environmental harm in administrative ot judicial proceedings (Boyle 1996). The connections between the global and local in terms of democracy and environmentalism are clearly demonstrated by Michael Mason's recent studyRICHARD HUGGINS fee impact of Agenda 21 in the London Borough of singron (Mason 1999). oe seudy offers an example of how environmental democracy is moving fovard and atthe same time, how new forms of deliberative and participatory polis may develop. Agends 21 iniiasves are an outcome of the 1992 Rio po'th Summit (United Nations 1993), and these initiatives encourage the Eansultation of the public over social and environmental issues, Local govern- compe in the United Kingdom has, in general, been relatively keen ro embrace Meee initiatives, and one consequence of this has been the growth of local txperiments in consultation and participation in local polices he cae of lelington a charter for sustainable development was agreed in 1995 which was founded on four principles (Mason 1999): 1 The encouragement of individual and collective responsibility for the environment 2, The creation of a viable system for protecting the environment 5, Equal access forall to a good-quality environment 4 The promotion ofa healthy and safe environment. ‘This charter and the Local Agenda 21 planning process has been led by = borough-wide Agenda 21 forum which includes a range of community repre, aoveatives, neighbourhood forums, local businesses, public seeor organisations seri voluntary groups. The process has been characterised by wide-ranging onsultation, procedural openness and community involvement. However, vhile noting these developments as favourable, Mason also draws attention ro the systemic limits that remain in place within a politcal system founded upon representative notions of political governance. gr (OTHINK POINT show doyou think the enironment shouldbe managed? How woud you getyour voice and oinons heard about environmental issues in your local neighbourhood? “We can see then that there are considerable limits to the notion of democracy as conceptualised within liberal democratic forms and practices. tis, howeves oe fone of democracy that is very much the one on offer as a model of democracy for those states undergoing the process of democratisation, oF indeed as a model for global democracy through transnational organisations seh as she United Nations or the European Union. In the next section ofthis Chapter we will consider some ofthe furures for democracy in relation fo EW) Signifieane developments of recent years: globalisation and technological innovation. f@ Futures of democracy and democrat isation ‘Today, the forces of democracy face a new source of corruption all the mote sinister because it appears so innocuous, often even identifying 181182 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION 4 ee eee itself with the liberty it undermines. Having survived the nation-state and in time subordinated ic to its own liberal purposes, can democracy now survive globalization? (Barber 2001: 275) If the definition, roots and meaning of democracy are problematic then the same is also true for the furure of democracy. Indeed, some would argue that the furure is far from bright for democracy. A range of factors are identified as limiting the workings of democracy in both theory and practice. These include environmental crisis, globalisation and the collapse of the Left. In this section we will focus on two significant developments for democracy and democ- ratisation. First, the fierce arguments ranging over the relationship between globalisation and democracy, and second, issues related to the emergence of ‘digital democracy’. Globalisation and democracy In a recent essay Benjamin Barber (2001), an advocate of strong and vital democracy, has made a stirring argument highlighting what he sees as the threat that globalisation poses to democracy. Referring to what he sees as an ‘ironic and radical asymmetry’ he argues that whilst globalisation has taken place in the markets of goods, labour, currencies and information, no such develop- ments have been experienced in civic and democratic institutions that, hitherto, have comprised the context of the free market (Barber 2001: 275). For Barber, capitalism has escaped from the institutional box of democracy and is running dangerously and destructively out of control. Barber argues that democracy has served the free market well and that the benefits of free market economy have fellowed the development of democracy rather than the other way round. However, in the late twentieth century the extensive and pervasive manifestations of global capitalism (‘McWorld’ as Barber (1996) calls it), including rampant privatisation, commercialisation and consumer culture, have resulted in a more efficient and complete domination of social and economic life. The ultimate result has been that this ‘concert of forces has been damaging to the pluralism of our society and the democracy of our political and civic life’ (Barber 2001: 276) Interestingly at the centre of Barber's arguments is the notion that globalisa- tion is accompanied and facilitated by privatisation, radical commercialisation and colonising commercialisation that has ‘demanded a quite astonishing and perfectly overt infantalizing of consume:s’ (Barber 2001: 293). Elite nostalgia aside, Barber's possibly overly pessimistic reading is a clear reiteration of classic liberal notions of democracy and his method of breaking the ‘vicious circle’ isto reimagine the institutions of nation-state liberal democ- racy as reinvigorated and written large across the global system, Whether or not this can be done leaves more radical and certainly more nuanced readings of globalisation off the agenda.RICHARD HUGGINS Examples of more nuanced readings of the relationship between and the fature for democracy and globalisation may be found in the work of those avters pursuing the theme of cosmopolitan democracy (Archibughi and Held 1995; Feld 1996; Archibughi eral. 1998). For David Held globalisation offers oth an opportunity and 2 necessity for the creation of a cosmopolitan TRemoeracy that will encourage the creation of democratic mechanisms of ‘ccountability and legitimacy at the global level. Held argues that “The theory of cosmopolitan democracy is one of the few political theories which examines systematically the democratic implications of the fact that arion-states are enmeshed today in complex interconnected relations. Our world is aworld of overlapping communities of fate, where the fare of cone country and that of another are more entwined than ever before. In this world, there are many issues which stretch beyond the borders of Countries and clullenge the relevance of those horders in key respect. (Held 1998: 26) Such challenges include the continued development of regional, international and global flows of resources and necworks of interaction, increasing inter, connectedness of political communities across social, cultural, environmental snd economic lines and more specific issues that include pollution and nvisonmental threats, use and distribution of natural resources, and regulation. —___ OF global nevworks of finance, trade and commerce which pose specific problems for democracy. — For Held cosmopolitan democracy offers an opportunity to create global, democratic response to these developments. In the short term Held argues for ‘reform of UN governing institutions such as the Security Council, creation ofa UN second chamber, enhanced political regionalisation ~ for example, in the EU — the use of transnational referenda, the creation of a new international Human Rights Court and the establishment of an effective and accountable international military force. Beyond issues related to governance Held advo- ‘tes more democratic organisational forms in the economy and the provision of resources to those in the most vulnerable social positions (Held 1998). Tn che longer term Held argues for the creation of a New Charter of Rights and Obligations locked into different domains of politcal, social and economic power, a global parliament, che separation of political and economic interests, the public funding of deliberative assemblies and electoral processes, an intes- connected global legal system and a permanent shift ofa nation-states coercive capabilicy to regional and global institutions. In the long term, economic reorganisation would result in a multisectoral economy characterised by & pluralicy of ownership and a social framework of investment priorities which Frould be set through public deliberation and government decision, while 2 ‘extensive market regulation of goods and labour would remain (Held 1998). ‘Although Held can point to general evidence and trends to support his arguments, chis model seems a litle uropian to say the least and would not inapress more radical critics. Another model of cosmopolitan democracy and governance is as follows. Cosmopolitan democracy A globalised form of democracy that is perceived as transnational, ‘mult-levelled and cosmopolitan. Some people argue that such political organisation is emerging in response to the economic and ‘cultural globalisation. 183184 DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATISATION DEMDERACT AND DEMOCRATISATION i | — Boutros Boutros-Ghali: An Agenda for Democratisation. ‘A Model for Global Democracy? United Nations Centre of the model for global democracy through the promotion of democratisation and reform of its own institutions and the strengthening of intergovernmental machinery. Member states All member states should take a full role in the global agenda with an increased attention to and engagement with international affairs by all member states. States should engage in dialogue, avoid isolationism, oppose unilateralism, accept democratic decision-making, oppose aggression, respect the rule of law. New actors Integration of non-state actors into existing international structures and mechanisms — this includes the key actors in the process of globalisation, the transnational entities of business and finance. Regional organisations Growing importance of regional groupings which can contribute political, diplomatic, financial, material and military resources to the global project of democratisation, i NGos Massive increase in number and range of NGOs. Such organisations are self- governing organisations increasingly taking on important roles in world affairs by carrying the voices and needs of a variety of communities into international arenas. To deepen further the democratising potential of these organisations further NGOs should be invited to participate in member state delegations, mentarians | Essential link between international organisations and public opinion. To consolidate the contribution of parliamentarians to international democra- tisation member states should encourage and facilitate greater involvement | of parliamentarians in United Nations efforts to provide support for Local authorities ‘To strengthen local frameworks for global problem-solving and to deepen the involvement of local authorities in the UN system UN resident coordinators should maintain regular dialogue with local authorities and member states should involve local authorities more directly in the processes of consultation and facilitate local authority involvement in UN bodies. (This model also contains a role for academia, business and the media, all of whom are charged with delivering their roles in a more global, responsible and cooperative way.) (Boutros-Ghali 2000: 105-24)RICHARD HUGGINS SpeeapenseesuneseeeensseuUnuuununreeeeerenssunseeee A021 I0G 102 THINK POINT What do you think of the Held and Boutros-Gheli models? What might be the advantages and , or the SQUALL website at