September 1, 2022 • 14 mins
Global Democracy Q&A: Why make democracy global if even nationally it fails? What about starting from below? And the UN? And how to prevent concentration of power?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:09):
Some people say it’s kind of mad to talk about global democracy,
when even on the national level democracyis clearly receding and in crisis in so many countries,
and when walls and fences keep growing longer and higher between countries.
But supporters of global democracy point out to that same reality,only with a completely different interpretation.
(00:33):
The crisis, we say, is not of democracy as such,but of national-level democracy.
The democracy that, by definition, ends at the border of the state,
while the powers that challenge it, are fundamentally global.
Global corporations that are far larger than statesso they can easily evade taxation and regulation,
(00:56):
global environmental problems that todaynobody is actually accountable for addressing,
and staggering global inequality.
And all of these feed into secondary problems,
such as the strong migration pressures from poor to rich countries.
So the real question is:
How can we seriously expect nation-state-level democracy to function properly when it’s so much smaller than the problems that it faces?
(01:26):
Expecting it to deal with them properly,and indeed to survive, that is the real madness.
Take national borders, for example.
They can be quite effective at blockingdesperate people from moving between countries, yes.
But they offer no help at all at addressingthe root causes that make these people desperate.
(01:49):
And notice the great difference, that within democratic states,
governments have a range of effective tools to address internal poverty and inequality,
like taxation of the richer people and then redistribution to everyone,
providing infrastructures, or education, or healthcare, or welfare of some sort.
(02:12):
But at the global levelthese tools simply do not exist as yet,
and there is no institution who has neither the democratic legitimacynor the democratic power to use such tools globally.
How do we know that? Simple.We know that we pay municipal taxes and state taxes,
(02:34):
and those of us who live in federations,like the United States, India or Brazil, also pay federal taxes,
but no one is charging us, or anyone else, global taxes.
And that is a huge problembecause we have serious global problems
that without proper funding simply cannot be addressed.
(02:56):
Today the top 1% and the global corporations can pick and choose where to pay taxes, and they end up paying nowhere
And so money is not just piling up in their accounts,but it gives them more and more power over our national governments.
And we need their tax money.
(03:16):
If there were some taxation and redistribution at the global level,
then all of us everywhere,including the rich, would be so much better off,
living in a more sane global society,more safe, more sustainable, more just, and really happy.
But for that we need that tool, that frameworkof a democratic state, at the federal level of the world.
(03:44):
But then you have the people that argue that before we canstart speaking about building democracy at the global level,
we need first to focus our efforts at nurturing greater feelings of global solidarity, generosity and compassion,
without which democracy, they say, couldn’t evolve.
The problem with this approach is that in our modern erawhere society is very large and diverse,
(04:11):
it is impossible to truly realize solidarity, generosity and compassion
unless the different groups of the societyshare also an inclusive and democratic political framework.
And we know that because even when we lookat the best examples of solidaric nation-states,
where the feelings of communal fraternity and solidarityare arguably stronger than those that exist on the global level,
(04:39):
it is clear to everybody, save maybe the most extreme anarchists,
that these moral sentiments by themselves are unfortunately entirely insufficient for sustaining justice in society.
It is self-evident to us, that preventing the strong within those countriesfrom harming or exploiting the weak
(05:00):
cannot be left only for the voluntary good will and the high moral sentiments of the strong,
or the invisible hand of the market,
but rather that a necessary element of a just societyis to have also that framework of the democratic state,
with a democratic justice systemand laws, and regulation, taxation and redistribution,
(05:24):
that are not dependent onlyon the moral goodness of the strong.
And so, if such a democratic frameworkis necessary even within the most solidaric nation-states,
so much more that it is vital and necessary also at the global level
where the population is many times larger and much more diverse.
(05:47):
And this is why we cannot postponeworking for a shared global democracy.
Without it the important valuesof solidarity and generosity and compassion
will remain locked in the box of ‘charity’ of the strong,
that make them feel good with themselves, rather than a system of true justice for all.
(06:10):
Another question that I often hear from those who are sceptic about global democracy
is ‘shouldn’t we fear that a federal state at the global levelmight lead to too much concentration of power in the hands of the few?’
And again, it is exactly the other way around.
We need that frameworkof a federal democratic state at the global level
(06:35):
precisely to prevent the concentration of power that plagues our world today,
and is, indeed, the major cause of injustice in the world
And it comes in two forms.
First, is the concentration of state powerin the hands of so many undemocratic national governments,
that even when by all accounts it is clear that they are oppressive to their own peoples,
(07:00):
there is yet no one above them that canhold them accountable for the injustices that they inflict.
Secondly, and strongly linked to the first, is the huge concentration of economic power
in the hands of a small global eliteof super-rich individuals and global corporations.
(07:20):
To be able to regulate them, to tax them,and to hold them accountable for the injustices that they cause,
we need nothing short of democratic state, with the tools of a democratic justice system,
that will work on the same level,the same scale of the global market, that they play on.
(07:40):
And please don’t get me wrong,there are many good things in the market system
and many good things in capitalism,but in order to function correctly and benefit society,
they need also proper state regulationto keep them in check, to prevent market failures,
such as, for example, the formation of private monopolies or cartels
(08:02):
that actively stifle the competition that is at the heart of the market system.
And yes, I know very well thattoday monopolies are often protected
and enabled by governments of nation states, with obscene patent laws and other measures,
but that is exactly because globally,state power is divided between separate national governments.
(08:27):
And then it’s so easy for the global corporations to influence and in fact dictate the national laws that they want.
Because, as I said, they are much larger and strongerthan the national governments that are supposed to regulate them.
And even so, it’s important to recognizethat despite these unfavourable conditions,
(08:50):
national governments still manageto impose some measure of limits and regulation
on global market powers for the benefit of their populations.
Which implies that if only democracywas allowed to go beyond the nation state level
and work at the same level as the global market,it could have been much, much more successful
(09:12):
And finally, probably the most outrageous objection that I often hear,
is that we don't need to talk much about global democracy,because we already have the United Nations,
and so many other inter-national organizations,like the World Bank and the World Health Organization.
These institutions, the argument goes, while not ideal,
(09:35):
allow the representatives ofall the world’s countries to work together, peacefully,
to promote the common interests of humanity.
Don’t they?
The problem with this rosy fairy tale is thatall these institutions are fundamentally undemocratic
Why? Well, as we all know,democracy has two fundamental components.
(10:00):
The first is the demos, the people,and the second is the kratos, the government.
In the words of the great Abraham Lincoln,democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
So the first question with regards to the United Nationsand all the other so-called inter-national institutions,
(10:20):
is ‘who is their demos?' 'who has the right to vote in them?’
And the answer is that in all of them, the right to vote is reserved exclusively for governments.
Not ‘governments that have been democratically chosen’,
not ‘governments who do not oppress their own citizens’,but simply ‘governments’.
(10:43):
That is the rule of the international system,this is how it works.
Which means that the very terms 'United Nations’ or ‘inter-national’ institutions are the worst forms of fake,
because if we understand the word ‘nation’to mean ‘the citizens of a country, the people themselves,
then the fact that whole nations are not being asked what they want,
(11:08):
shows how these institutions are fundamentally undemocratic as far as the demos is concerned.
Rather than 'inter-national', the correct adjectiveto describe them is ‘inter-governmental’ organizations.
Or ‘inter-governmental’ institutions. No more.
Which means, that when you lookat the General Assembly of the United Nations,
(11:32):
you see there a big room that is arguably full of humans.And yet, humanity there, is absent.
It has no say and no representatives in that room.
People in so many countries,who are not less human than you or I,
have no say as to who will be sitting in that room
and voting, often against their will, and yet in their name.
(11:56):
What a fake!
And if you look for the kratos,the government element in those institutions, it’s even worse.
You see, inter-governmental organizations are just organizations,
that governments join only if they like,if it serves their interests and if it does not threaten them.
(12:17):
The governments don’t have to join, and they don’t have to stay,
and they don’t have to comply with any resolution that they don’t like.
The UN organization is not ‘supra-national’ or above the governments,it is only 'inter-governmental'.
It’s just a link between governmentsthat depends entirely on their voluntary agreement.
(12:38):
So, there is no kratos, there is no government element in those institutions.
Which means that they are not democratic also from that perspective.
The true role of these institutionsis to provide nothing but a façade of legitimacy
and legality and democratic representationto a global system of governance that has none of that.
(13:01):
They are just a cover for a global system of government of the people,but by the elite and for the elite.
That is what we really have today in the world.
And we need something completely different.Something truly democratic.
We, humanity, deserve to recognize ourselves as a demos,that can and should share a federal human kratos,
(13:25):
a government of the people,by the people and for the people of the world.
That is the key to solving so many problemsthat inflict humanity today and remain unanswered.
And those of us who understand this,should spread the word to others to bring them on board.
We need to come togetherand put global democracy at the of our priorities,
(13:48):
because without it all the other causes and goals cannot be really reached.
I am certain that together we can make it happen.
Some people say it’s kind of mad to talk about global democracy,
when even on the national level democracyis clearly receding and in crisis in so many countries,
and when walls and fences keep growing longer and higher between countries.
But supporters of global democracy point out to that same reality,only with a completely different interpretation.
(00:33):
The crisis, we say, is not of democracy as such,but of national-level democracy.
The democracy that, by definition, ends at the border of the state,
while the powers that challenge it, are fundamentally global.
Global corporations that are far larger than statesso they can easily evade taxation and regulation,
(00:56):
global environmental problems that todaynobody is actually accountable for addressing,
and staggering global inequality.
And all of these feed into secondary problems,
such as the strong migration pressures from poor to rich countries.
So the real question is:
How can we seriously expect nation-state-level democracy to function properly when it’s so much smaller than the problems that it faces?
(01:26):
Expecting it to deal with them properly,and indeed to survive, that is the real madness.
Take national borders, for example.
They can be quite effective at blockingdesperate people from moving between countries, yes.
But they offer no help at all at addressingthe root causes that make these people desperate.
(01:49):
And notice the great difference, that within democratic states,
governments have a range of effective tools to address internal poverty and inequality,
like taxation of the richer people and then redistribution to everyone,
providing infrastructures, or education, or healthcare, or welfare of some sort.
(02:12):
But at the global levelthese tools simply do not exist as yet,
and there is no institution who has neither the democratic legitimacynor the democratic power to use such tools globally.
How do we know that? Simple.We know that we pay municipal taxes and state taxes,
(02:34):
and those of us who live in federations,like the United States, India or Brazil, also pay federal taxes,
but no one is charging us, or anyone else, global taxes.
And that is a huge problembecause we have serious global problems
that without proper funding simply cannot be addressed.
(02:56):
Today the top 1% and the global corporations can pick and choose where to pay taxes, and they end up paying nowhere
And so money is not just piling up in their accounts,but it gives them more and more power over our national governments.
And we need their tax money.
(03:16):
If there were some taxation and redistribution at the global level,
then all of us everywhere,including the rich, would be so much better off,
living in a more sane global society,more safe, more sustainable, more just, and really happy.
But for that we need that tool, that frameworkof a democratic state, at the federal level of the world.
(03:44):
But then you have the people that argue that before we canstart speaking about building democracy at the global level,
we need first to focus our efforts at nurturing greater feelings of global solidarity, generosity and compassion,
without which democracy, they say, couldn’t evolve.
The problem with this approach is that in our modern erawhere society is very large and diverse,
(04:11):
it is impossible to truly realize solidarity, generosity and compassion
unless the different groups of the societyshare also an inclusive and democratic political framework.
And we know that because even when we lookat the best examples of solidaric nation-states,
where the feelings of communal fraternity and solidarityare arguably stronger than those that exist on the global level,
(04:39):
it is clear to everybody, save maybe the most extreme anarchists,
that these moral sentiments by themselves are unfortunately entirely insufficient for sustaining justice in society.
It is self-evident to us, that preventing the strong within those countriesfrom harming or exploiting the weak
(05:00):
cannot be left only for the voluntary good will and the high moral sentiments of the strong,
or the invisible hand of the market,
but rather that a necessary element of a just societyis to have also that framework of the democratic state,
with a democratic justice systemand laws, and regulation, taxation and redistribution,
(05:24):
that are not dependent onlyon the moral goodness of the strong.
And so, if such a democratic frameworkis necessary even within the most solidaric nation-states,
so much more that it is vital and necessary also at the global level
where the population is many times larger and much more diverse.
(05:47):
And this is why we cannot postponeworking for a shared global democracy.
Without it the important valuesof solidarity and generosity and compassion
will remain locked in the box of ‘charity’ of the strong,
that make them feel good with themselves, rather than a system of true justice for all.
(06:10):
Another question that I often hear from those who are sceptic about global democracy
is ‘shouldn’t we fear that a federal state at the global levelmight lead to too much concentration of power in the hands of the few?’
And again, it is exactly the other way around.
We need that frameworkof a federal democratic state at the global level
(06:35):
precisely to prevent the concentration of power that plagues our world today,
and is, indeed, the major cause of injustice in the world
And it comes in two forms.
First, is the concentration of state powerin the hands of so many undemocratic national governments,
that even when by all accounts it is clear that they are oppressive to their own peoples,
(07:00):
there is yet no one above them that canhold them accountable for the injustices that they inflict.
Secondly, and strongly linked to the first, is the huge concentration of economic power
in the hands of a small global eliteof super-rich individuals and global corporations.
(07:20):
To be able to regulate them, to tax them,and to hold them accountable for the injustices that they cause,
we need nothing short of democratic state, with the tools of a democratic justice system,
that will work on the same level,the same scale of the global market, that they play on.
(07:40):
And please don’t get me wrong,there are many good things in the market system
and many good things in capitalism,but in order to function correctly and benefit society,
they need also proper state regulationto keep them in check, to prevent market failures,
such as, for example, the formation of private monopolies or cartels
(08:02):
that actively stifle the competition that is at the heart of the market system.
And yes, I know very well thattoday monopolies are often protected
and enabled by governments of nation states, with obscene patent laws and other measures,
but that is exactly because globally,state power is divided between separate national governments.
(08:27):
And then it’s so easy for the global corporations to influence and in fact dictate the national laws that they want.
Because, as I said, they are much larger and strongerthan the national governments that are supposed to regulate them.
And even so, it’s important to recognizethat despite these unfavourable conditions,
(08:50):
national governments still manageto impose some measure of limits and regulation
on global market powers for the benefit of their populations.
Which implies that if only democracywas allowed to go beyond the nation state level
and work at the same level as the global market,it could have been much, much more successful
(09:12):
And finally, probably the most outrageous objection that I often hear,
is that we don't need to talk much about global democracy,because we already have the United Nations,
and so many other inter-national organizations,like the World Bank and the World Health Organization.
These institutions, the argument goes, while not ideal,
(09:35):
allow the representatives ofall the world’s countries to work together, peacefully,
to promote the common interests of humanity.
Don’t they?
The problem with this rosy fairy tale is thatall these institutions are fundamentally undemocratic
Why? Well, as we all know,democracy has two fundamental components.
(10:00):
The first is the demos, the people,and the second is the kratos, the government.
In the words of the great Abraham Lincoln,democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
So the first question with regards to the United Nationsand all the other so-called inter-national institutions,
(10:20):
is ‘who is their demos?' 'who has the right to vote in them?’
And the answer is that in all of them, the right to vote is reserved exclusively for governments.
Not ‘governments that have been democratically chosen’,
not ‘governments who do not oppress their own citizens’,but simply ‘governments’.
(10:43):
That is the rule of the international system,this is how it works.
Which means that the very terms 'United Nations’ or ‘inter-national’ institutions are the worst forms of fake,
because if we understand the word ‘nation’to mean ‘the citizens of a country, the people themselves,
then the fact that whole nations are not being asked what they want,
(11:08):
shows how these institutions are fundamentally undemocratic as far as the demos is concerned.
Rather than 'inter-national', the correct adjectiveto describe them is ‘inter-governmental’ organizations.
Or ‘inter-governmental’ institutions. No more.
Which means, that when you lookat the General Assembly of the United Nations,
(11:32):
you see there a big room that is arguably full of humans.And yet, humanity there, is absent.
It has no say and no representatives in that room.
People in so many countries,who are not less human than you or I,
have no say as to who will be sitting in that room
and voting, often against their will, and yet in their name.
(11:56):
What a fake!
And if you look for the kratos,the government element in those institutions, it’s even worse.
You see, inter-governmental organizations are just organizations,
that governments join only if they like,if it serves their interests and if it does not threaten them.
(12:17):
The governments don’t have to join, and they don’t have to stay,
and they don’t have to comply with any resolution that they don’t like.
The UN organization is not ‘supra-national’ or above the governments,it is only 'inter-governmental'.
It’s just a link between governmentsthat depends entirely on their voluntary agreement.
(12:38):
So, there is no kratos, there is no government element in those institutions.
Which means that they are not democratic also from that perspective.
The true role of these institutionsis to provide nothing but a façade of legitimacy
and legality and democratic representationto a global system of governance that has none of that.
(13:01):
They are just a cover for a global system of government of the people,but by the elite and for the elite.
That is what we really have today in the world.
And we need something completely different.Something truly democratic.
We, humanity, deserve to recognize ourselves as a demos,that can and should share a federal human kratos,
(13:25):
a government of the people,by the people and for the people of the world.
That is the key to solving so many problemsthat inflict humanity today and remain unanswered.
And those of us who understand this,should spread the word to others to bring them on board.
We need to come togetherand put global democracy at the of our priorities,
(13:48):
because without it all the other causes and goals cannot be really reached.
I am certain that together we can make it happen.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.