The Undemocratic Nature of International Institutions

The Undemocratic Nature of International Institutions


The western democracies pride themselves as the model for modern government. They see themselves as the descendents of Ancient Greek and Rome. From the Greeks we have inherited the concept of Democracy and from the Romans the concept of Justice and equality before the law. The English trace their Democratic institutions from the Magna Carta of 1215 which imposed limits on the Monarch and guaranteed subjects of the crown with certain freedoms and rights under the law. The Americans pride themselves in their Constitution as the guarantor of the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The French remember the 1789 rebellion and the subsequent Revolution and the introduction of “Fraternite, egalite, and liberte”. All these countries and others recall the beginnings of equality under the law, and the right to a say in the running of the government; not necessarily through direct democracy, but through the right to vote, freedom of speech, the right to property, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In all cases the concept of equality and the right to vote based on simple citizenship and not title, land or capital holdings, have become ingrained in the culture and are guaranteed under the Constitution whether written or through common law.

The history of the 20th Century and the World Wars that have been fought have been characterized as wars to protect individual freedoms and the Democratic principles of government. Communism has rightly been depicted as limiting the rights of individual freedoms and the right to elect a government of their choosing. The Western Democracies have won the day and Totalitarian forms of government have, whether Communist or Fascist, been relegated to the dust bin of history. Western powers, especially the United States have been supportive of similar types of democratic governments and individual freedoms throughout the world. The United States has gone so far as to say that the latest Iraq war was an attempt to establish democracy and the rule of law in a section of the Middle East, with the hope that this would lead to the flourishing of democratic forms of government in other middle eastern countries. The British upon leaving their colonies after WW II, whether through colonial rebellions or financial necessity, had through the policies of its government attempted to foster democratic forms of government throughout its former colonies. The United States claims to have helped establish democracies in countries such as Japan, Germany and Italy. If we were to sum up the expectations of the Western Democracies it might be that progress and civilization will ultimately lead the rest of the world to a representative form of government based on individual freedoms and the election of a representative form of government. The thought being that these types of governments and individual freedoms will foster greater stability and peace throughout the world. The policies of any Democracy, it is believed, will tend to converge with every other democracy and lead to a more prosperous and peaceful world. This of course has not yet been proven, but there is merit to hope that such an outcome is probable. It has certainly worked on a National level, so why should it not work on an International level. The principle of individual freedom, equality under the law, and being governed by a freely elected government responsible to the people is conducive to civil living. After all, one of the greatest achievements of the Western Democracies is that if we have individual freedoms and a just and functioning legal system, combined with a representative government. In this environment disputes, misdeeds, and economic and regional rivalries, can be resolved in a peaceful non violent fashion, and adjustments made as circumstances warrant. There is little if any intrigue, no bottled up and stewing resentments, the competitive spirit is channelled towards economic or cultural competition, and the society evolves in a gradual continuous fashion, and not through stops and starts and violent outbursts and adjustments.

One would assume that what applies on a National level would also apply on an International level. The greatest threats to mankind today are self inflicted. We have evolved to a point, where barring a meteorite hit, we can adjust to anything nature can throw at us. Our greatest dangers are man made; whether these be technological, environmental, or over population, they require our attention and moreover cooperation amongst the bulk of humanity if we are not to turn such threats into military conflicts and possible human annihilation. With the experience of the first two world wars and the failure of the League of Nations, the United States and its WWII allies created the United Nations as an institution where human problems could be discussed and dealt with, without having to resort to the massive loss of manpower and human tragedy that these two wars represented. Unfortunately, as in all other human endeavour, self interest rears its ugly head, and if one can get away with it, one does. The United Nations which should have been a model for human dialogue, stewardship, and problem resolution, became an instrument for the WW II allies to project their future hegemony over world affairs.

It must be stated that at the time of the creation of the United Nations, we lived in a very different world. The concept of colonies still existed and was deemed to be normal by countries such as Britain and France. The Monroe doctrine providing US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere (North and South America), was viewed as perfectly natural. The Soviet Union’s sphere of influence over the Eastern Block (Eastern Europe) was viewed as a reality backed up by man and materiel on the ground. The AXIS powers defeat relegated them to secondary status. Countries such as India, Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, and most of South America were viewed as under the influence of some super power or other. The concept of equality amongst the various world governments was certainly not a concept whose time had come. Never the less it is very hard to give these excuses as to why the United Nations became structured in such an undemocratic fashion. This is an institution that got created by powers that believed, if not in Democracy, certainly in equality under the law. The Democratic countries (The United States, Britain, and France) could certainly have convinced The Soviet Union and Taiwan to go along with a more representative structure. After all, it would have been very difficult for the Soviet Union to argue against people’s equal representation in International institutions; and as for Taiwan, it would have gone along with whatever the United States would have proposed.

What we got was an institution composed of two chambers, The General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly, an organization with no powers, except for the power of persuasion is at first glance viewed as being Democratic, that is each member has one vote, and decisions are based on majority rule. The problem is that each country has one vote. So India has one vote and the Bahamas, or Bermuda, or Singapore has one vote. The theory is each country represents a people, and each people have an equal vote, therefore democratic. One problem, India represents 1.2 billion people, the Bahamas represents less than 300, 000 people, they each have one vote. So on a ratio basis, each Bahamian individual has 4000 times the voting right of an individual Indian citizen. It is estimated that mathematically it is possible for 8% of the world’s population to pass a resolution in the UN General Assembly.
The Security Council, the only institution of the United Nations that has any power, is composed of 16 members, 5 permanent members with individual veto power, and 11 members that are elected in the General Assembly based on some very specific regional representation rules, who serve for a specific period of time and have no veto power. As most of us know the 5 permanent members are The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. These states of course are the victors, or their descendents, of the Second World War.

Now that the world has evolved and we know better, there are movements afoot to alter The Charter of the United Nations so that it is more representative. In fact, if it is to survive and become a more useful institution, it has to change. Unfortunately to change the Charter a two thirds majority of its members is required along with the unanimity of the permanent members of the Untied Nations Security Council. The likelihood of this happening will be somewhat near to impossible, but not impossible. Interestingly, the changes proposed are not to do away with one country one vote in the General assembly and have something more representative based on population distribution, like all other Democracies; no, the focus is on which other countries merit security council permanent representation and should they have veto power or not. The issue of eliminating veto power is not even on the list of possibilities.

The inclusion of India as a permanent member of the Security Council is not very controversial, other countries such as Japan, Germany, Brazil, Nigeria, Italy, and possibly some Middle Eastern country are controversial. It seems no on has taken the time to address the issue of equal representation, justice, and feeling that as a citizen of whatever state I belong to, I can feel that I have equal representation in International institutions and can therefore accept and support whatever resolutions are democratically arrived at.
No, the jockeying for position is well under way, and campaigning to please the current permanent members is duly being strategized in the various world capitals whose government feels they have a chance at a permanent place within the Security Council, with or without a veto power.

Is there no government who believes in Democracy on an International level? It is not as if the United Nations is particularly intrusive in World affairs. Surely, the more states in the Security Council with veto power the less likelihood for that council to pass any resolution.

The old game of Power politics is alive and well, and no state has even contemplated not playing the game.

We will have to wait fro some other major world catastrophe before humanity will bury the United Nations and embark on some other form of World body, hopefully with a more representative form of governance.

We could have talked about the WTO (World trade Organization), the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or the World Bank. In all cases the concept of Democracy is not quite an accepted form of governance.

One needs to ask, why this is so?
There is certainly a great deal of mistrust in International relations, but one suspects that is not the main reason why these institutions are not democratic. The real reason has to do with protecting acquired rights. This in some sense is not that different from the struggle between the landed aristocracy (land owners) and the Merchant/Capitalist class during the Industrial Revolution. The new moneyed class certainly had gained in importance, but the landed aristocracy was not going to give up without a fight. We therefore had internal struggles nationally between the various power groups, ultimately leading to some form of Democratic government.

Who will fight for equal rights on an International level?
It will certainly not be the National governments; they will not give up any rights without a fight. The logical conclusion is that there will be struggles for power and eventually some form of international democracy will emerge.
Of course this presupposes that we will survive such struggles, not a particularly good bet I would hasten to add.

The World needs to return to the concept of International parties and proponents of greater International equality and human rights. Perhaps not the Communist International, but some form of belief in a common charter of rights and freedoms; not necessarily the United Nations charter of rights and freedoms, which is all encompassing and ultra generous because no state is required to apply it, and there are no penalties for infringing its rules.

Perhaps the United Nations will be reformed when, and only when, its members will be forced legally to abide by whatever resolution is passed in the United Nations. As we are a long way from that, the United Nations acts like a Royal Court, a place to see and be seen, to display your status, and to show your generosity to the lesser equals. Fortunately we know what has happened to Royal Courts. Perhaps the same will happen to the United Nations.