CSD Students' Working Paper Series

Transcription

1 Centre for Studies in Democratisation CSD Students' Working Paper Series IS THE IDEA OF COSMOPOLITAN DEMOCRACY MEANINGFUL? AND IS IT ATTAINABLE? Jack Stevenson Working Paper n. 4/ 2011 Centre for Studies in Democratisation Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL United Kingdom

2 The Centre for Studies in Democratisation (CSD) was established at the University of Warwick in 1992 in response to a growing interest in the study of democracy at a theoretical and empirical level. Democratisation has become a central political theme and features now prominently on the foreign policy agenda of western countries. Members of CSD are seeking to understand why, how and when democracies emerge, sustain or collapse. They also investigate the reasons why democratisation can sometimes be problematic. Do not hesitate to contact us for more information! Renske Doorenspleet (Director): Renske.Doorenspleet@warwick.ac.uk Or visit our website:

3 Abstract Cosmopolitan Democracy is a theory that analyses the nature of democracy within the context of a globalised world. It posits that due to an increasingly interconnected and overlapping international system, the ability of the democratic nation-state to permit its citizens individual autonomy and selfdetermination is seriously undermined. Cosmopolitan Democratic theorists believe that in order to overcome this democratic deficit now found within the globe, a new form of democratic governance needs to be created. Institutions at and above the level of the nation-state are called for, in order to allow the individual the formal and substantive right to autonomy and self-determination. This essay will argue four points. First it will show that cosmopolitan democracy presents a legitimate and thought-provoking critique of the current democratic system within the nation-state. Second, it will highlight the meaningful alternatives Cosmopolitan Democracy presents to combat this perceived democratic deficit. Third, it will highlight the various flaws found within the model of Cosmopolitan Democracy before arguing that even if such flaws could be addressed, the inherently undemocratic nature of Capitalism means that the core proposal of Cosmopolitan Democracy - that an equal level of self-determination should be had by all - cannot, and will not, be attained whilst positioned within a Capitalist economic system.

4 Is the idea of cosmopolitan democracy meaningful? And is it attainable? Jack Stevenson INTRODUCTION Democracy has had a long and varied existence. It has, as Archbugi states, experimented with the idea of self-governance for three thousand years (2010: 312). Over such time it has been seen to change its skin in order to survive. The initial idea of direct participation found within ancient Greece for instance, when placed within a geographically larger polity, was seen as impractical and replaced with representative democracy. The need to formulate new ways to implement democratic governance while still remaining true to its core principles is at the heart of Cosmopolitan Democracy (CD). An increasingly globalised and interconnected world, it is argued, has limited the ability of the democratic state to uphold and enforce democratic principles. As a result, CD theorists argue that democratic governance has to again change its skin in order to survive, with democracy now needing to be implemented not just within states, but also among and beyond them (Archibugi, 2004: 438). As a political theory, speculation surrounds CD as to whether it can be seen as a meaningful body of thought (that it produces a logically consistent and cohesive argument), and whether the overall argument itself can ever be attained. In relation to such questions, this essay will make three claims. The first posits that CD presents a meaningful body of thought. The second 1

5 suggests that although coherent, numerous flaws can be found in relation to the implementation of democratic principles on a global level. Thirdly, it will argue that the capitalist system does not allow equal levels of selfdetermination, in turn rendering CD unattainable. This essay will highlight the criticism CD makes in relation to the nation-state, and how globalisation has undermined its democratic ability. It will then express how these undermining tendencies can be countered through the implementation of democratic institutions that cut across various levels of governance. After, it will explore the various arguments that suggest theoretical revision is needed in order for a more credible theory to be produced. Finally, it will show how the capitalist-economic-system, in which the CD model is placed, produces political inequalities and undermines democratic processes. As such, Capitalism denies the CD model its basic proposition of attaining selfdetermination for every individual. Defining Cosmopolitan Democracy In order to understand CD, we need to understand the basic idea of democracy. For CD theorists, the idea of democracy derives its power and significance from the idea of equal self-determination; that is, from the notion that members of a political community citizens should be able to choose freely the conditions of their own relationships, and that their choices should constitute the ultimate legitimation of the form and direction of their polity (Held, 2005: 146). Democracy means rule by the people, the determination of public decision-making by equally free members of the 2

6 political community. The basis of its justification, Held argues, lies in the promotion and enhancement of autonomy, both for individuals as citizens and for the collective. In this context, the concept of autonomy connotes the capacity of human beings to reason self-consciously, to be self-reflective and to be self-determining. It involves the ability to deliberate, judge, choose and act (or not act as the case may be) upon different possible courses of action in private as well as public life, bearing the common good in mind (Rousseau, 1968 cited in Held, 2005: 146). CD theorists thus examine the ideals of equal self-determination and individual/collective autonomy in the context of a globalised world. They argue that contemporary political communities based on dividing lines between the included and the excluded within the nation-state are not a suitable model of the democratic management of public issues in the age of globalisation (Franceschet, 2000: 180). If, for example, the economic actions of one country can affect the citizens of another without those citizens consent, then the ability for autonomy and self-determination democracy is undermined. The interconnected and interdependent world that now exists means democracy within the nation-state is in jeopardy. The state can no longer be seen to hold autonomy on the decisions that affect its citizens (Held, 2010: 294). In turn, it is believed that the only way democracy can survive in the form expressed above, is through its promotion above and beyond the nation-state. It argues that a range of institutions below and above the level of the state should be constructed, allowing individuals and communities affected by political, social and economic decisions the means to participate in, and be represented within, decisions that affect them: a globally formal and 3

7 substantiate right to democracy (Archibugi, 2010: 319). A Criticism of the Democratic Nation-state in Relation to Globalization and Democratic Peace Theory The emergence of CD thought, as stated above, comes from a criticism of the nation-states ability to allow individual self-determination within the contemporary world, and the apparent inability for other, more traditional political theories to take hold of such issues. Democracy has traditionally centered on state sovereignty and an uncritically appropriated perception of a territorially-bounded political community (Holden, 2000: 1). This approach is based on a symmetric and congruent relationship between political decision makers and the recipients of political decisions. It is assumed that the fate of a national community is largely in its own hands, with the core democratic principles of political participation, representation and accountability developing through an interplay between actors and structures in the nation-state (Held, 1997: 240-1). However, it is argued that networks of political identities have often overlapped, and have become increasingly apparent under the conditions of globalisation, which has extended networks of relations and resources within and across state borders (Hutchings, 1999: 162). An increasing disjuncture now exists between a state s claim to sovereignty (and with it the ability to uphold and enforce democratic principles) and the political actualities. For example, due to an increasingly globalised economy, multinational 4

8 companies have emerged. This has had a profound effect on macroeconomic policies, with corporations shifting their demand for employment to countries with lower employment costs. The lack of accountability to the citizens it employs, Hoffman denotes, means that the global economy is not subject to the principles that apply to relations between individuals and state (Hoffman, 1995 cited in Falk, 2000: 163). Furthermore, the significant environmental challenges of global warming, such as resource consumption and trans-boundary pollution, means that many political issues are no longer centred foremost around single political communities and cannot be solved by any one nation-state acting alone (Held, 2010: 294). Political communities are subsequently locked into a variety of overlapping processes and structures, leaving democratically elected governments unable to determine what is appropriate exclusively for their own citizens, and those citizens in turn unable to determine decisions exclusively for themselves (Held, 1997: 241). CD highlights how a globalised world can undermine the democratic belief in self-determination. It in turn takes issue with current schools of thought related to democracy promotion. It argues that Liberalists and Neo-realists have often undermined the basic idea of democracy by promoting the idea that a global democratic world can be achieved through the promotion and consolidation of democratic states (Franceschet, 2000: 180). For while an increasing number of democratic states would certainly ease the struggle for global democracy and peace, it fails to comprehend/appreciate the political actualities needed in order for the individual to achieve total autonomy and 5

9 self-determination in a globalised and interconnected world (Ibid). This, I would argue, is where much of CD s strength lies in its pursuit to be regarded as a serious political theory. It provides genuine food-for-thought, correctly highlighting that an increasingly globalised world has the ability to undermine the sovereignty and therefore the democratic ability to present individuals with autonomy and equal self-determination of the nationstate. It also advances contemporary political thought in relation to democracy, which has failed to see that while democracy beyond the nationstate remains weak, democracy within the nation-state is weakened as well (Axtmann, 2002: 101-2). The Theoretical Model of Cosmopolitan Democracy Such views have led CD theorists to argue that while democracy has in general come to be seen by citizens as the most legitimate form of governance, a democratic deficit now exists within the globalised world. They posit, in a coherent and compelling manner, that if the concept of democracy is now to survive, a break in the link between democracy and the nation-state is needed. In the same way that democracy was extended from the level of the town to that of the state in the 18th century, it should, in the 21st century, be extended from the nation to humankind as a whole; towards the global citizen (Beetham, 1999: 137). Kant s Promotion of a Cosmopolitan Law 6

10 The idea of a global citizen derives from the theoretical framework of cosmopolitan law proposed by Kant (Kant, 1970 cited in Habermas, 1997: 113). He believed that although the barriers of national sovereignty were insurmountable (due to an anarchic international system), cosmopolitan law could be promoted throughout the globe in order to bind states together through common understanding (Ibid). Such common understanding would come from the concept of universal hospitality the right of a stranger or foreigner not to be treated with hostility when arriving in another country being implemented into Republican states constitutions (Kant, 1970 cited in Habermas, 1997: 115). It was argued that individual moral codes were often dictated by the ideas found within their state constitution. The constitutional implementation of universal hospitality, it was believed, would allow people to learn to tolerate one another s company and coexist peacefully, leading to a universal community (Kant, 1970 cited in Habermas, 1997: ). However, as stated, Kant s idea of cosmopolitan law centered on a federation of Republican states (Habermas, 1997: 128). In this sense, cosmopolitan law reinforces the statist framework of international relations. The idea of CD, although also working towards the establishment of an international community, promotes the idea that the right of the global citizen should be found within his/her ability to act in a completely selfdeterminate and autonomous manner: the universal right to democracy. And as we have seen, this right cannot be attained if, for economic, cultural, or other reasons, the quality of the lives of others is shaped and determined in near or far-off lands without their participation, agreement, or consent 7

11 (Held, 1997: 244). Democratic Public Law Kant s idea of cosmopolitan law is subsequently replaced by the CD concept of democratic public law. This would institutionalise individual and collective rights and establish a principle of democratic autonomy (Ibid). Driven by an all-affected principle, CD theorists argue that in order for individual self-determination to be achieved, decisions should be made essentially by those that are affected by them (Saward, 2000: 33). In turn, it argues for the creation of different levels of overlapping and diverse democratic governance, below and above the level of the state. (Hutchings, 1999: 161). These different levels of governance, found within institutions a structure/mechanism of social order, governing behaviour would ideally be situated within the realm of the: local, state, interstate, regional and global (Archibugi, 2004: 446). They would in turn democratically deal through a majority voting system with the different issues and policy questions related to those political communities found within such levels, whilst still remaining subservient to, and limited by, the overarching value of democratic public law (Ibid). Sovereignty would subsequently be stripped away from the idea of fixed borders and territories, and democracy implemented not just within states, but also among and beyond them (Held, 2002: 100). Held presents an interesting example of how such a democratic model would work in relation to environmental problems: 8

12 factories emitting various forms of toxic waste can be locally monitored and challenged, nationally regulated and supervised, regionally checked for cross-national standards and risks, and globally evaluated in the light of their impact on the health, welfare and economic opportunities of others (Held, 1995: ). The concept of the global citizen is therefore founded within the idea that each individual should have both the formal and substantive right to selfdetermination. It argues that the global citizen should have the possibility to participate in, and have their thoughts equally represented within, the policies and decisions that affect them. And if such principles are not followed, local-to-global institutions are in place to hold the appropriate political actors to account. (Held, 1997: 246). We find within these proposals a meaningful body of thought. For if we believe that democracy should be defined as self-determination, then, from a theoretical point of view, the evidence put forward by CD accurately states that democracy cannot survive in this basic form under the conditions of globalisation. Instead, democratic institutions are needed below, above, and among the level of the nation-state. Controlled within the universal acceptance of democratic governance, these varying levels of institutions are the only mechanisms that can permit the global right of the individual to have an equal say in the issues and policies that may affect them. However, while the overall model of CD has stayed the same, the application of the 9

13 model and at what level it should be pursued has varied with each individual theorist. How Cosmopolitan Democracy should be Pursued When hoping to understand the application of CD, the most commonly cited theorist is Held. He, along with McGrew, suggest that long and short-term changes should be made within the various levels of perceived governance, in order to both promote global democracy and help counter those undemocratic institutions already in place (for a more in-depth account of such proposals see Held and McGrew, 2007: 105). However, I believe other, more varied and interesting ideals should be highlighted in order to achieve a more rounded account of CD thought. Richard Falk and a Law of Humanity Falk for example, expresses a strong commitment to the idea of a global civil society, believing CD should be promoted primarily through the idea of a law of humanity (1995: 164). For him, a global civil society refers to a field of action and thought occupied by individual and collective citizen initiatives that seek to identify and regulate the adverse effects of what he calls democracy-from-above (Ibid). This correctly promotes the fact that within the globalised world a number of non-democratic, market-driven tendencies operate. These both protect and promote the flow of strategic 10

14 resources from South to North (Falk, 1995: 169) and in turn promote the interests of some individuals over others. The law of humanity is subsequently an objective that seeks to identify and regulate the adverse effects of globalisation-from-above and correct social injustices. It is a political goal that seeks to benefit the peoples of the world and protect their long-term interests (Falk, 2000: 170). Action should be undertaken through a transnational sphere of social activism, in which individual and collective citizens voluntarily engage through national and transnational nongovernmental institutions. Such involvement, he argues, should be identified as the process of globalisation-from-below (Falk, 1995: ). Falk posits that CD is the only concept capable of mobilising and unifying the social forces that constitute global civil society, as it provides the basic aspirations of peoples everywhere to participate in the processes that are shaping their lives (Falk, 2000: 171). Globalisation-from-below is thus offered as the most efficient way of achieving a global democracy, with Falk believing that it would encourage the global civil society to demand for themselves the establishment of greater mechanisms of democratic accountability, participation and representation throughout the globe, bringing about a system of CD (1995: 173). Daniele Archibugi and a Reform of the UN Other CD theorists, however, believe that the application of CD should first formulate around the reform of the United Nations (UN). Archibugi suggests that it is neither realistic nor useful to imagine a more democratic globe 11

15 without assigning a principle role to the UN (1995: 122). This standpoint posits that the best way to promote democracy both among and above states is through an international actor. This is because it has the potential to achieve both the legitimacy and impartiality that can enable it to engage in states internal affairs, whilst having the authority to mediate among them and the capacity to represent a point of reference for civil society (Archibugi et al, 2000: 128). CD theorists ascertain that the UN, while having achieved an excellent logical construction, has failed to live up to the democratic foundations upon which it was built (Archibugi, 1995: 126). For example, the structure and workings of the UN Security Council undermines basic democratic principles. The existence of the veto power for the five permanent members of the Council has meant that a few members alone hold a substantial amount of power, and may invalidate the decisions of the majority (Archibugi, 1995: 126). The contradictions found within the UN are seen as serious institutional obstacles towards global democracy, limiting its potential to become a globally legitimate, impartial and authorial institution. If, however, democratic reforms were implemented, it is thought the UN would be seen as a more democratically legitimate institution. This would in turn allow it the greater potential to pursue/implement the institutions and framework needed for CD. These various perspectives allow for a better understanding on the model of CD, as they express what needs to be pursued, both by the individual and the state, in order for a cosmopolitan democratic society to be achieved. We are again presented with a meaningful argument as to how democracy can be 12

16 pursued outside the confines of the nation state, and how CD can eventually become a reality. However, the coherency of a theoretical argument does not mean that the theory itself is not flawed. Criticisms of the Cosmopolitan Democratic Model As already discussed, the model of CD promotes the idea that each individual has the equal and complete right to participate in, and be represented within, the political issues that affect them. Those who would implement such issues should be able to be held to account in order to legitimate CD. However, the mechanisms promoted by CD theorists to deliver these rights have come under scrutiny. A number of thoughtprovoking issues can be highlighted, which, in their present state, undermine the potential effectiveness of the CD model to provide the capability of equal self-determination for the individual. Equal Participation In relation to the idea of participation, CD theorists have failed to take into account that the sheer complexity of many international matters often puts issues beyond the immediate capacities of many citizens (Almond, 1950: 139). Along with the reasoning that the average citizen is uninterested in foreign affairs, Schumpeter claims that whereas in situations such as 13

17 economic transactions people often experience the results of their decisions (and mistakes) directly, in the case of political decisions there is no such feedback mechanism. As a result people lose touch with reality and behave irresponsibly, with the typical citizen drop[ing] down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field (Schumpeter, 1943, cited in Miller, 2003: 40-41). CD theorists fail to take note of the remote nature of political affairs both domestic and foreign from the lives, experiences, and familiar knowledge of the ordinary citizen. Without a relatively equal level of understanding on such issues, the right to equal selfdetermination is undermined. A greater and more robust system of civic education would subsequently have to be implemented into the global arena, allowing the global citizen the ability, if they so chose, to better understand the political, social and economic issues that may affect them. No such system is mentioned within CD. Global Representation The CD also fails to express adequately how voting would be represented, and how decisions would be best decided. The CD model advocates that citizens are represented within the democratic system by the principle of majority rule (Archibugi, 2010: 320). Decisions are not made by group consensus but rather the majority determines the position of the whole citizenry (Axtmann, 2002: 106). However, it is often argued that the principle of majority rule does not suffice to generate legitimacy of a 14

18 democratic political system as a whole. It is instead premised on at least within the state system of governance intermediary institutions (Axtmann, 2002: 106). Axtmann argues that these institutions play a central part in expressing minority groups voices across to governments and policy makers, thereby allowing minority groups a majority voice (Ibid). Without such institutions, the legitimacy and accountability of the government, at least in the eyes of minority groups, would be likely perceived as unjust and a potentially illegitimate form of governance, fragmenting the global community needed within CD. The application of majority rule is thus conducive to the defeated minorities acceptance of the majority decision (Ibid). This is again found within the population sizes of different countries, with the principle of majority rule one-person-one-vote leading to small countries being steadily outvoted by large countries (Dahl, 1999: 31). And whilst CD theorists seemingly acknowledge such issues (Archibugi, 1995: 153), they present no solution. This concerning matter would need to be addressed in order for CD to be seen as a legitimate representative model. CD theorists may do well to examine the voting system of the European Union. Appointment to the European Parliament is founded on degressive proportionality. Although no precise formula exists, bigger member states agree to accept fewer seats than they would receive if the total were divided according to population size, so as to allow for better representation of less-densely populated states (European Parliament Composition, 2007). A similar system would obviously allow for a more represented model of CD to exist. Of more 15

19 concern however, is the little consideration for the different levels of intensity some situations may impose on individuals. For example, global warming affects every citizen within the CD model. Yet it does not take into account the intensity such an issue has on, for instance, the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), which represents countries that, according to some predictions, may literally disappear due to its effects (Saward, 2000: 38). The CD model seems to neglect the levels of affect that individuals and communities may feel in relation to policies and decisions. No criteria is in place to define who should and should-not be seen to be affected by certain issues. For what of the individuals/communities who believe issues are of consequence to them, and others who perceive them not to be? As with the size of a country, a similar system allowing for the representation of issues based on their significance to individuals and communities is needed in order to legitimate CD. An Accountable Global Force Finally, the accountability that the CD model promotes can also be called into question. As Beetham posits, the weak point of CD is that no mechanism exists to ensure that global institutions can be held/made accountable (1999: 140). Held and McGrew suggest that one of the longterm transformations that can help the global community move towards CD is through the creation of a permanent military/peacekeeping force. This would allow the model of CD to be upheld and enforced throughout the globe (2007: 218). As has been suggested, the UN is often seen as the 16

20 closest institution acceptable to the model of CD. However, it has not been able to stop the various levels of abuse committed by its peacekeeping forces. For example, in 2005 UN troops were accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan, and again in 2007 in the Ivory Coast (BBC, 2008). This shows how even institutions created to maintain human rights and democratic principles could act in an exploitative and repressive manner. CD theorists do not show how the mechanism for democratic accountability a global military force could in itself be deemed democratically accountable, and not able to commit the same abuse seen within UN peacekeeping missions. It may in turn have to revise whether every aspect of the global world can be held accountable to the democratic principles it promotes. By highlighting these underlying flaws, it can be shown that while CD is indeed a coherent theoretical approach to democracy within the globalised world, it is not without its imperfections. Thus, until such flaws and inconsistencies can be addressed, CD will remain unpersuasive to many. However, even if these problematic critiques could in some way be overcome, the CD model is inherently incompatible with the economic system of Capitalism. By placing itself within such a system, the core ideal of democracy that each individual have the equal right to selfdetermination is undermined. Due to this, reforming the model of CD is rendered meaningless, because the attainability of its basic ideal cannot be met: Capitalism always permits an unequal level of self-determination to be achieved. 17

21 Capitalism and the Unattainable Model of Cosmopolitan Democracy Although these ideas are not new (Marx and Engels, 1848: 5-55), contemporary theorists continue to be concerned with Capitalism and its ability to undermine democratic processes (Dahl, 1989: ). Extensive disparities in income and wealth are inevitable in a capitalist system and often lead to political inequalities at the level of the individual. Endless studies have shown that in every liberal democracy, people with higher incomes and those with better and longer education often linked to wealth are significantly more likely to vote in elections or contact politicians than people of low income and education (Verba, et al., 1995 cited in Bernhagen, 2009: 113). Furthermore, economic inequalities can generate resentment and frustrations among the disadvantaged, consequently eroding the sense of community and legitimacy upon which democracy and subsequently CD is frequently thought to rest (Gorg and Hirsch, 1998: 586). More importantly, economic resources can be translated into political resources. According to Olson, a relatively small number of group members combined with a concentration of benefits have much stronger incentives to organise for, and achieve, political action than larger groups, such as consumers or taxpayers, over whom both costs and benefits are more widely dispersed (Olson, 1965 cited in cited in Bernhagen, 2009: 114). It seems that even if a large group of individuals could pool their wealth in order to compete with these elites, collective action theory with its various forms of coordination problems and the prisoners dilemma reiterates that a small group of business elites would normally be more effective in ascertaining 18

22 political goals (Gilbert, 2006: 3). This issue is also tied to the fact that democratic state power is often dependent on its ability to promote conditions conducive to capital accumulation, in order to produce revenue from the taxation it subsequently achieves (Roper, 2007). The need for nation-states to create profitable environments for investors often means that they promote policies that are primarily focused around, and look after, the political and economic interests of businesses. This can, over time, affect the quality of democracy, preventing political reforms that extend rights and liberties to others and lead to a race to the bottom in political, social and environmental standards (Morlino, 2004 cited in cited in Bernhagen, 2009: 114). These issues undoubtedly challenge the ability of substantive autonomy and self-determination to be sustained or even produced within the global arena, where capital is better placed than labour to organise politically (Roper, 2007). Theorists such as Held do seem to take notice of these economic requisites needed to achieve an equal level of democracy for all. Nevertheless, the CD model suggests that these are secondary issues compared to political reform and can be easily overcome. It promotes that a Charter of Rights and Obligations be globally implemented, which would constitutionally guarantee two fundamental economic rights; basic income and access avenues to the decision-making apparatus, and to two forms of economic policy; increased social control of global investment and controls on short-term capital flows (Held, 1995 cited in Smith, 2003: 6-7). These policies/rights hope to reduce the level of conflict economic inequality produces and reduce the unequal level of political power business 19

23 elites hold (Held and McGrew, 2002: 136). Such economic reforms would undoubtedly improve the lives of millions of people, and to strive for equality is always a commendable thing. However, due to the issues raised above, these policies would still fail to produce an equal level of selfdetermination and autonomy upon which the theoretical model of CD is based. This can be expressed through the work of Smith and his criticism of the two fundamental economic rights Held promotes. Basic Income Smith asserts that even if CD could attain relatively high levels of wages throughout the global economy that did not undermine the capital/wagelabour relation, and over-accumulation crises did not occur (two basic arguments against the attainability of a basic level of income), a baseline of income below which people are not allowed to fall does not, in itself, remove economic inequality (2003: 12). Smith posits that even if minimum standards of income were set, there would still be economic inequality, as such a baseline simply allows inequality to start at a higher point (Ibid). Access Avenues Furthermore, Smith proposes that access avenues, in which labourers, local communities, consumers etc., are granted access to, and codetermination of, sites of industrial and financial decision-making that are 20

24 incompatible with the production relations that underlie the capitalist world market (Smith, 2003: 13). He promotes Stiglitz s theory of a principal-agent problem within Capitalism, which refers to the relationship between investors and managers. It suggests that managers often pursue their own interests, which at times conflict with investors. However, if such incidences occur, a series of mechanisms within Capitalism such as due diligence legislation tend to realign such interests (Stiglitz, 1994 cited in Smith, 2003: 14). Held s access avenues is an attempt to view management/labour relations in terms of the principal-agent problem, with managers furthering their interests in a manner consistent with their wagelabourers (Smith, 2003: 14). But as Smith depicts, what of cases where the perceived self-interest of investors and labourers are in essential conflict? And of which group would management then consider itself the agent? (Ibid). These questions are answered by another question. Does the workforce, under the capitalist system Held envisions, have the power to appoint/change/reward its management or the legal rights to sue under due diligence? The answer to this is no. The capitalist system under the CD model continues to give social and political powers to business elites, and only provides workers with the power to negotiate (Smith, 2003: 14-15). We are consequently left with a model whose reformist ideals still leave us with an inherently undemocratic capitalist system that proscribes a varying level of political power to different groups of individuals based on wealth and income. This is not to say that I propose or call for the revolutionary overthrow of Capitalism. But such an argument does suggest that the CD 21

25 model, in relation to its core proposition that an equal level of selfdetermination and autonomy can be globally achieved, is, I believe, unattainable within a capitalist system. As such, an unequal level of selfdetermination and autonomy denotes that an equal level of participation, representation and accountability cannot be achieved. CONCLUSION The CD model of thought presents an interesting analysis and critique of democracy when placed next to an increasingly globalised world. It correctly shows how through an ever-growing and interconnected world, the idea of equal self-determination and individual autonomy has been seriously undermined, with overlapping political communities suggesting that such democratic values can no longer be perused solely within the nation-state. It also provides a meaningful and logical body of thought as to how such issues can be resolved. Though various, overlapping levels of governance and institutions, the ability of the individual to participate in, and be represented within, the issues and decisions that affect him/her would certainly be able to address and reinstate the idea of autonomy and selfdetermination within the globe. However, such a theory, as with any theory, is not without its critics and flaws. Numerous revisions need to be made to the current body of CD thought in order to address the issues highlighted. Without this, the model of CD will never be able to completely commit to the democratic ideals of participation, representation and accountability. Nevertheless, in spite of the coherent arguments found within CD thought, I 22

26 believe that its basic idea of democracy an equal level of selfdetermination for all is undermined by the current economic system within which it positions itself. Through extensive disparities in wealth and income, as well as the ability for economic resources to be translated into political resources, Capitalism always has the ability to produce political inequalities at the level of the individual. As such, I conjecture that global democracy, at least in the form CD gives it, cannot be attained. As Roper states, if the form of democracy prompted by Held is to be implemented, it needs to be fundamentally anti-capitalist in nature (Roper, 2007). 23

27 Bibliography Almond, G. (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy, New York: Harcourt Brace. Archibugi, D. (1995) From the United Nations to Cosmopolitan Democracy in Held, D., and Archibugi, D. (eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order, Cambridge: Polity Press Archibugi, D., Balduini, S., and Donati, M. (2000) The United Nations as an Agency of Global Democracy in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge Archibugi, D. (2004) Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, No. 3, p Archibugi, D. (2010) The Architecture of Cosmopolitan Democracy in Held, D., and Brown, G. (eds) The Cosmopolitanism Reader, Cambridge: Polity Press Axtmann, R. (2002) What s Wrong with Cosmopolitan Democracy? in Dower, N., and Williams, J. (eds) Global Citizenship: A Critical Reader, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Beethham, D. (1999) Democracy and Human Rights, Cambridge: Polity 24

28 Press. Bernhagen, P. (2009) Democracy, Business, and the Economy in Haerpfer, C., et al. (eds) Democratization, Oxford: Oxford University Press Chandler, D. (2003) New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the Critique of State Sovereignty, Political Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2, p Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press. Dahl, R. (1999) Can International Organization be Democratic? A Skeptical View in Shapiro, I., and Hacker-Cordon, C. (eds) Democracy s Edges, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Elster, J. (1996) Nuts and Bolts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Falk, R. (1995) The World Order between Inter-State Law and the Law of Humanity: The Role of Civil Society Institutions in Held, D., and Archibugi, D. (eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order, Cambridge: Polity Press Falk, R. (2000) Global Civil Society and the Democratic Project in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge

29 Franceschet, A. (2000) Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? Liberalism, Kant and International Reform, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 2, p Gorg, C., and Hirsh, J. (1998) Is International Democracy Possible, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 4, p Gilbert, M. (2006) Rationality in Collective Action, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 1, p Habermas, J. (1997) Kant s Idea of Perpetual Peace with Two Hundred Year s Hindsight in Bohman, J., and Lutz-Bachman, M. (eds) Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant s Cosmopolitan Ideal, Cambridge: MIT Press Held, D. (1995) Democracy and the New International Order in Held, D., and Archibugi, D. (eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order, Cambridge: Polity Press Held, D. (1997) Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: A New Agenda in Bohman, J., and Lutz-Bachman, M. (eds) Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant s Cosmopolitan Ideal, Cambridge: MIT Press Held, D. (2000) The Changing Contours of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization in Holden, B. (eds) 26

30 Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge Held, D. (2002) The Transformation of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context Globalisation in Dower, N., and Williams, J. (eds) Global Citizenship: A Critical Reader, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus, Cambridge: Polity Press. Held, D. (2005) Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press. Held, D., and McGrew, A. (2007) Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide, Cambridge: Polity Press. Held, D. (2010) Reframing Global Governance: Apocalypse Soon or Reform! in Held, D., and Brown, G. (eds) The Cosmopolitanism Reader, Cambridge: Polity Press Holden, B. (2000) Introduction in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge Hutchings, K. (1999) International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era, London: SAGE Publications. 27

31 Marx, K., and F, Engels. (1848) The Communist Manifesto, New York: Le Socialiste. Miller, D. (2003) Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roper, B. (2007) Cosmopolitan Social Democracy: A Marxist Appreciation and Critique Proceedings of the 2007 Political Studies Conference held at the University of Otago, Dunedin: University of Otago. Saward, M. (2000) A Critique of Held in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge Smith, T. (2003) Globalisation and Capitalist Property Relations: A Critical Assessment of David Held s Cosmopolitan Theory, Historical Materialism, Vol. 11, No. 2, p Zolo, D. (2000) The Lords of Peace: From the Holy Alliance to the New International Criminal Tribunals in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge Online BBC, Peacekeepers Abusing Children, 27/05/

32 (Accessed, 28/04/2011). European Council Composition, Composition of the European Parliament, 19/10/ (Accessed, 27/04/2011). 29