The fanfare launch of a Manifesto for Global Democracy
backed by significant thinkers ought to be a cause for celebration.
Unfortunately, its content is so weak that at best it’s a missed opportunity
and at worst a step backwards.
Among the signatories are democracy expert and professor Daniele
Archibugi, Noam Chomsky, the writer and journalist George Monbiot, globalisation
expert Saskia Sassen and scientist and activist Vandana Shiva. They and others
wrote and signed the manifesto.
Much of the document states the obvious, though it’s none
the worse for doing so. You can only nod in agreement when the manifesto says:
“In spite of their many peculiarities, differences and limitations, the
protests that are growing all over the world show an increasing discontent with
the decision-making system, the existing forms of political representation and
their lack of capacity for defending common goods. They express a demand for
more and better democracy.”
It portrays the “emergence of regressive and destructive
processes resulting from the economic and financial crisis, increased social
inequalities, climate change and nuclear proliferation” and concludes: “Global
crises require global solutions.”
However, the assertion that the failure of national and
international leaders to deal with global events shows merely that “existing
forms of global governance are insufficient” is superficial and wrong. That’s
because the 872-word document avoids, omits, ignores, rejects or sidesteps the
nature of our current social system, aka capitalism.
You will find that term mentioned frequently in the Financial Times, even in parliament by
leading politicians. But not in this manifesto. So we’re left clutching the air
with talk of “governance” which, while certainly an issue, cannot be tackled
separately from the main cause of a series of global crises.
As a result the call for “global solutions” is reduced and
restricted to an appeal for a series of reforms to international agencies. These
are intended to be carried out by the same discredited political elites who
have played a crucial role in facilitating an uncontrolled, corporate-driven
globalisation process that has led to a tipping point.
So the manifesto insists that “the existing national-state organisations (my emphasis) have to be part
of a wider and much better coordinated structure” alongside democratic regional
institutions and moves towards a future World Parliament. Yet increasing
numbers of people view these existing structures as part of the problem and not
the solution.
World leaders have not, as the manifesto claims, been
“running behind global events” because of governance issues. They cannot tackle
fundamental issues because the state systems they administer are tied
inextricably to conserving and advancing the status quo of transnational
capital. Of course, capitalism itself more and more resembles a nuclear power
station in melt down mode.
Capitalist democracy, which was a step forward for the
masses previously denied an electoral voice, is in crisis precisely because it
has disenfranchised the majority. Increasingly, political institutions and
parties are in practice part of a single giant corporation – UK PLC, for
example. This is not democracy. It’s a corporatocracy.
As a result, the manifesto’s call for “a socio-political
process open to all human beings, with the goal of a creating a participative
global democracy” must inevitably fall on deaf ears. So will the demand for a “new
paradigm of development which has to be sustainable on a global basis and which
benefits the poorest of humanity”.
Achieving these worthwhile and essential goals will require
much more than an appeal to existing political classes to join with ordinary
people to succeed. Yes, we need a more advanced democracy, as the manifesto
says.
But that cannot be separated from the extension of democracy
in deeper ways through, for example, the transfer of ownership of corporations
and banks into the hands of working people, consumers and local communities. Production
for profit has to be replaced with co-operation and meeting need.
That will involve a transition from failed political-state
structures that uphold the status quo through building initiatives like
people’s assemblies. Our rulers have had their chance and blown it. It’s time
to move history on, politically, socially and economically.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
No comments:
Post a Comment