Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Global Democracy International Not Cosmo PDF

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo Silva
    25 views13 pages

    Original Title

    Global_Democracy_International_not_Cosmo.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    25 views13 pages

    Global Democracy International Not Cosmo PDF

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo Silva

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    Philosophy and the Global Context Series Editor: Michael Krausz, Bryn Mawe College eres address 2 range ‘Tend curl coments |g movements. Compara {hitonment poverty, consumers, ce soca, toleranc, colonia, go ity in epbertpace. They also address elated methodological sues of translation and ccs ri waderstnding, iitoral Advisory Boor ‘ed Benton, University of Ese vid Crocker, Universty of Maryland cht, University of Ford Manga Vals, University of Meco as Wired, Univesity of Sout Florida cul Property: Mora Lagan DternatnnalDiemaaas (1882) by Adam D. Moore sof Consumption: The Good Lf, fice, and Global Stewardship (1988) edited by David. “rocker and Ty Linden the Glob Village (1998) by Pred Dallmaye (Sophia Reflections o de Changer Batra Bop (1988) by Wiliam L. MeBiide ) by Rar Adnar Mall 5 ud Wes (2000) edited by Bie Gupta and J.N.Mobenty tal Tanreson fol Stuart Mas Paso of iteration Afr) by Ely f Souteant {i of Righnesr (2000) by Michael Krsase "a Word the PyrielUnirese: Consinsns, Free Wil, and Boban (2001) by Nicholas Masel rane Beewers Forbearance and Acpeance (2 ns and Vash Words A lobe tay Self Nostalgia an finer N.S, Resurgence of rst Soitiane Jos, snd Leal DEMOCRACY IN A GLOBAL WORLD Human Rights and Political Participation in the 21st Century Deen K. Chatterjee ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Latha + Boader + Now Trk + Toot + Pmt, UK 160 Chapter 5 —Oldenguist loudly demand it. And there along with European loyalties is something tes. Acknowledging nested mul people do all the time. smisses the point and is lke saying that an egoist {ore ian’ biased, if this egois ages that everybody may make ego! is, everyone may be biased. (Journal of Philsop) 10. Bein, “Nationalist: 11. Bedin, “Nationalism: 12. Tam g 1984, for hep 6 Global Democracy: International, Not Cosmopolitan’ Kok-Chor Tan resentatives” (Gut consent to. According to liberal res, foremost, that individuals share 0 effectively debate and to col- 213, 226-27), necessary for persons who S.Mill, pertiaps, was more explic 1e wrote that “free institutions are next to much of the than most 162 Chapter 6—Ta yuntry made up of different nationalities. Among a people ling, especially if they read and speak different languages, inion, necessary to the working of representative govern- (Mill 1991, 428), ‘the united put ‘ment, cannot ex Itis not my aim. alist thesis, that the nati meet the new challenges brought about by globalization. As national aries become more permeable with respect to the decisions and p) actors and forces outside the borders of ‘eho would be affected by these decisions and practices have a decision ‘And this is plainly conirary to the deliberative democratic idcal that collective decisions ought to be those decisions that individuals affected could reasonably consent to, To counter this global democratic deficit that has been rendered more salient by the forces of globalization, some theorists argue that ‘we need to develop an account of democracy that can transcend the limits of, the nation-centtic idea of democracy. But what are the prospects for globalizing democracy if the “common sym- pathies” necessary for democratic deliberation exist between fellow members of a nation but “do not exist between them and any others” (Mill 1991, 427)? ionalist thesis is correct, how can we conceive of and achieve global democracy? ists think thatthe nation is the basic site of deliberative democracy. Inthe sec- cond part of this chapter, I recall some of the familiar arguments as to why a nation-bound concept of democracy is thought to be inadequate in the face of increasing economic globalization. Next, I look at cosmopolitan democracy will argue that global democracy conceived literally as an in- is, as a democracy of “democracies rooted in g0 some way toward correcting the existing democratic institutions level provides a mote realistic and practical way of achieving global democracy than the cosmopolitan democratic approach. Ifthe nation- the fifth and last section, I clarify why the nationalist obstacle to cosmopoli- Global Democracy: International, Not Cosmopolitan 163 tan democracy docs not undermine cosmopolitanism understood as an ideal about justice. I Nationality and Democracy writes that “democratic meaning by this that democratic deli ividuals who share a common langtiage. One reason for this is that ordinary people feel “comfortable debating political issues in their own tongue,’ and that, as a general rule, only elites can acquire fluency in more than one language. So to require people to deliberate in a language foreign to thei is to defend a form of elitism at best, and at worst to exclude them from deliberative politics—a violation of the democratic ideal either way. Also, “political communication has a larg¢ component” that a mere tech- in a language may not be sensitive to (2001, 2 ample, Yael Tamir notes how the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, follows after the “Great Knesset.” witich was a central religious and political institution uring the period of the Second Temple (Tamir 1993, 148). The Knesset’s proceedings and procedures thus reflect a particular culture and background history that a merely technical understanding of Hebrew may not suffice to render comprehensible and familiar. Thus, Kymlicka concludes that “the ‘more political debate is conducted in the vernacular, the more participatory it will be? (2001, 214). In addition to the common language that shared nationality provides, an- other crucial role nationality plays in servicing democratic politics is that it Provides a sense of solidatity and unity that is necessary for generating the requisite level of mutual respect and trust among individuals. Democracy re- ‘quites individuals to respect the reasonable views of their felow citizens even if they arc in deep disagreement with each other, and conversely that they are to forward arguments and views that each can “reasonably be expected rea- sonably to endorse” (Rawls 1999, 140). It also requires a certain degree of trust the losers in given democratic process can be motivated to honor the » because they are confident that should the results be in their favor next their opponents would likewise honor these results (Kynlicka 2001, 226; also Miller 1995, 90). Fellow nationals are, of course, not intimate with each other as, say, friends ‘or kin are, But fellow feclings, nationalists argue, need not be restricted only to people who are closely related to one another. Co-nationals see themselves 48 part of a collective with a common past and a shared future, and even if 164 Chapter 6a they ate not actually acquainted with each other, “in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson 1993, for this reason that, Benedict Anderson famously refers to the nation a3 “an i nity? meaning by this not that the nation is a worthy of people's allegiances, but that association that is premised on a people's its historic and communal distinctness. ‘Thus, David Miller writes that democratic politics “are likely to function most effectively when they embrace just a single national community” (Miller 1995, 90). This is because the virtwes of mutual trust and respect, moderation and self-restraint, and, one might add, the idea of public reason (Rawls 1993, 1999), are crucial for a functioning democratic political community, and ‘common nationality provides the “cement” for engendering and nurturing these virtues (see Canovan 1996), In sum, “national political forums with a single common language form the primary locus of democratic participation in the modern world, and are more ‘genuinely participatory than political forums at higher levels that cut across language-lines” (Kymlicka 2001, 227). Nationality provides the cultural lin- suistic basis for democratic deliberation and the source of democratic trust ‘and respect among citizens.* Il, Globalization and the Democratic Deficit ‘The nation-centric account of cracy is commonly said to be outmoded in an era of economic globalization. Economic globalization, or globalization for short, refers to the process of increasing integration and interdependency ‘of national economies, the increasing mobility of capital and labor across na- tional boundaries, the creation of new global markets and products (e.g, f= nancial markets and their “products” such lobalization is the tard a boundless global economy (or at least the approxima- jes and membership are becoming less and less rel- evant with respect i Yet the burdens and bens from being equally shared of the increasingly globalized economy are far nong the world’s population. In spite of this space (or because of it, some say), global in- come disparity has risen rather than fallen. One basic reason for this increas- the backdrop of globalization is the so-called demo- cratic deficit in the global sphere. Economic decisions ate global in the scope Global Democracy: Invernational, Not Cosmopolitan 165 of their effects and implications, and are often even made by institutions and organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Bund (IME), multinational corporations (MNCs), and so on, that transcend na- ‘ional affiliation in the traditional sense. Yet these decisions are not regulated by procedures that reflect the will and views of individuals who are affected significantly by them, As John Dryzek points out, “globalization means that important issues increasingly elude the control of nation-states” (1999, 30) This lack of democratic control, especially on the part of individuals most vel. ing economy, over the terms and processes of global- equal allocation of benefits and burdens among indi- ly. As the scape of our economic interaction widens, so too should the scope of our democratic procedure in order to regulate this interaction on terms that al can accept. Normative considerations, in short, ought to be globalized #8 our economic decisions and practices take on a more global scope. Some- thing like this is underscored by Hume wien he wrote that if"several distinct societies maintain a kind of intercourse for mutual co tage, the boundary of justice stil grows larger, in proportion to the largeness of men's view, and the force of their mutual connexions” (Hume 1777, 153). As members of nations, especially those in the developing world, become in. creasingly vulnerable to decisions of other countries as a result of increased enmeshment of national economies, limiting any democratic control they ‘may exercise within their borders does not go far enough to ensure that dech sions that have grave impact on them ate decisions they could reasonably con- sent to, UL Cosmopolitan Democracy, World State, and World Citizenship But how can the current global democratic deficit be best corrected? How best {0 globalize” democracy, soto speak? Some theorists argue that to counter the democratic deficit, we need to reconecptualize democracy, to rethink democ. 2s global rather than a nationally rooted ideal, As one commentator puts ‘Democracy at the national level has become meaningless as teal decisions are made ata higher level and these higher-level institutions are largely exempt from democratic oversight or accountability” (Lynch 2000, 96). ping “networks of interaction” between states, accrbated by a globalizing econ- ‘omy do not coincide with the bounded territories within which democratic deliberation takes place. Thus, as David Held fhas put

    You might also like