The Guardian’s Comment is Free website and Soundings magazine are organising a series of debates on the theme of After New Labour: Who owns the progressive future?. Some of the contributions are making it online. After excoriating the “Third Way” for its lack of focus on what used to be the left’s core goal – working to put into practice the belief “that it is the sacrosanct duty of community to care for and to assist all its members, collectively, against the powerful forces they are unable to fight alone”, sociologist Zygmunt Bauman poses a problem which haunts anyone concerned with political action in the name of social justice:
Genuine powers, the powers that decide the range of life options and life chances of most of our contemporaries, have evaporated from the nation state into the global space, where they float free from political control: politics has remained as local as before and therefore is no longer able to reach them, let alone to constrain. One of the effects of globalisation is the divorce between power (the capacity to have things done) and politics. We have now power freed from politics in the global space, and politics deprived of power in the local space.
How can we combat this ultimate insult to democracy – the removal of power itself from the arena of national politics? I’m interested in hearing what people think. It seems to me to be a devilish problem – “global civil society” – usually assimilated to NGOs has its own problems of legitimacy, and enormous energy needs to go into electoral contests at the national level to defend what can be salvaged from a political horizon seemingly endlessly moving rightward. At the same time, and this is an issue feminism as a social movement has grappled with, there are huge problems of coordination and respect for different lived experience in orchestrating action and translating thought across borders.
What is to be done?
Elsewhere: SocProf offers her thoughts at The Global Sociology Blog.
“How can we combat this ultimate insult to democracy – the removal of power itself from the arena of national politics?”
This is an awfully vague and open-ended question. I note that some nations these days still have enough power to launch invasions of Mesopotamia, to spend unimaginable amounts of money on financial bailouts, and to put widespread constraints on criticism.
For an example of the latter, I doubt there are many Russian activists complaining that too much power has been removed from the arena of national politics.
I also note that the left is perfectly happy with the concept of removing national power when you think it will serve your principles — for example, with the possibility of international law and the UN over-riding national sovereignty.
Can I just respond to your challenge with a simple, indeed banal, observation? Progressives these days simply are not knuckling down to the hard work of putting forward alternatives. On blogs, in magazines and books, in every medium, they come up with analysis and critiques — but rarely does anyone ever try to put up an alternative.
That’s where it has to start, folks. Yes, Kim, I’m looking at you here. And at Mark B. For ages now, I, and others, have been occasionally suggesting to Mark that he put on the table what he considers to be a viable alternative to modern capitalism (or to some sub-set thereof in a particular policy area).
He hasn’t bitten on that one, saying, essentially, that blog posts aren’t the right vehicle to put forward complex policy proposals. OK, fair enough, that’s his choice.
But as long as Mark and Kim — just like Naomi Wolf and Chomsky and all the big names — are content to criticise rather than propose, you just won’t get anywhere.
Whereas, all the rightwing commenters are chockers with useful suggestions. Education vouchers. Otherwise free market for everything. Oh yes, that’s right – the Right doesn’t have to come up with alternatives, cos it’s got the Invisible Hand and ignoring climate change is not only possible but desirable. Sucks to be the Left, doesn’t it?
I guess some people are just drawn to opposition, maybe Mark should join the Liberals.
Ok, Poor jokes aside. There is a divorce of power and politics due to globalisation, but it’s uneven. Those that have managed to maintain control over their economies have largly shut ou the outside world or exploited it with protectionism and financial regulations. China, Russia, Middle-Eastern OPEC countries and Singapore (to a degree) all have done this, and supprisingly enough all of them have strong, long term, non-democratic or partial-democratic countries and find themselves in relatively strong positions going into a financial crisis.
No one, left or right ever seems to address the problems in the structure of democracy, the ones that leads us to weak and ineffectual governance, this is what is really harming us. If you want to save democracy, then maybe it’s time we had a good hard look at it’s weaknesses and start giving our system a bit of backbone.
PinkyOz
Our society is based on the idea of individual rights and limited government.
If we dump these principles, then it’d be possible to combat the “insult” of globalisation.
However, I imagine that most who comment here, either Left or Right, would dismiss that “cure” as being worse than the disease.
For better or for worse, we are stuck with the dominant value of national sovereignty. It is unlikely that citizens of any country will be willing to transfer their sovereignty to an international or even multinational entity.
Thus, for the foreseeable future, the challenges and opportunities of globalisation are likely to exist in tension with national sovereignty, unless there is a major upsurge of corporatism, either of the Left or of the Right.
I’m fairly confident that most commenters here would not welcome any such upsurge.
” A disturbingly large segment of the global population perceives much of globalization to be injurious. Admittedly, the free travel of terrorists among the nations of the world does not make the world a better place; and neither does the unrestricted trade in offensive weapons technologies; and nor does the ability of criminals to launder ill-gotten gains through offshore banks in Antigua or Vanuatu. In an ever-shrinking world, groups that once managed to live in relative peace through separateness feel increasingly threatened, and some react with violence. For every account of globalization that culminates in the capitalist paradise, there are others in which globalization results in world-wide anarchy or tyranny. At a first approximation, the best possible future follows the straight and narrow path between these unappealing alternatives. The narrowness of the path is determined by the combination of the spread of destructive technology and the difficulty of improving human nature.
In contrast to the divergent future worlds of globalization, all versions of anti-globalization are incoherent. Of course, one can imagine various details: less trade and travel; more robust boundaries; the elimination of ngos; and a turning back of the clock, so as to restore cultural institutions that are in the process of breaking down. But the pieces do not add up, at least not on the level of the whole world. By its very nature, anti-globalization cannot be a global political agenda. Every worldwide conference or gathering of anti-globalization activists or politicians necessarily dissolves into self-contradiction — or worse, becomes a deceptive cover for some bad version of globalization, such as a worldwide communist revolution. ”
.
From a longish article by Peter Thiel. It is a free flowing and wide ranging piece of writing and highlights some marked differences in how various people are interpreting the current situation. The assumptions about the demise of the nation state are revealing as I gather this guy is of some influence in the hedge fund world.
.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/14801241.html
Helen, check out the comments at the bottom of the post at The Global Sociology Blog, which Kim linked to. They’re sayin’ what I’m sayin’, and it’s hardly a novel point.
Katz, that national sovereignty will remain the dominant value in the international system seems to be a reasonable assumption.
Further, it is unlikely that citizens will be willing to transfer national sovereignty to an international organisation.
However, I am not as pessimistic about the possibility for change.
We already have a shell of an organisation – the United Nations – that is built on the notion of national sovereignty and has a measure of legitimacy with the world’s citizens. As it is currently structured, the organisation cannot reach Bauman’s new “genuine powers”. If, however, the organisation is reformed by injecting a measure of democratic legitimacy, then it is possible that would change.
Reform how? By replacing each national ambassador with up to five* directly elected representatives. A fully representative general assembly would be an excellent avenue through which to push a progressive agenda – or a conservative one.
I know it sounds pie-in-they-sky (but then, doesn’t every progressive idea at first??
). In its favour, the idea does not undermine existing notions of national sovereignty; it does not require a change to the UN charter, so the idea could not be vetoed by the P5 and it does not require 2/3 GA support; in fact, it can start small with just a few states electing their reps later to be expanded as others bandwagon; and finally it will separate those who talk about “spreading democracy” from those who believe in democracy.
anyway, just an idea.
* See UN Charter Article 9.2.
Its not going to be very representative if high population countries have the same number of representatives as tiny ones. And in practice how do you force open elections on many countries who don’t have them now anyway?
Governments survive by tax.
I doubt that the General Assembly’s tax collector will be very welcome in many necks of the woods.
Corporations that wish to operate transnationally could be taxed on their profits from doing so, as it’s principally them who would be the targets of regulation.
High population countries already have the same number of representatives as small ones – that is what state sovereignty is all about. If you’re concern is proportional representation, then anything you propose will change the nature of the United Nations and undermine the notion of state sovereignty (“all states are equal”). Moreover, it would require a change to the UN Charter, which is next to impossible.
Secondly, no state would be forced to elect their representative(s). One of the features of the idea is that the promise of joining a democratically elected GA would provide ammunition to democratic forces in authoritarian states. See for example how Eastern European countries are reforming themselves to conform with EU policies in order to join the Union. Importantly, a state’s representatives would only be certified if the process to elect them meet agreed standards.
It seems to me that legitimacy (through direct representation) precedes taxation. I expect a democratic caucus can survive in the GA using the present UN budget until it demonstrates its usefulness. Only after it has broad legitimacy (and the numbers) could it successfully move to acquire powers of taxation independent of national governments.
Representation is an issue for the UN at the moment which I see it more as a venue for countries to discuss issues rather than a representative body that actually decides anything much (especially anything by voting rather than consensus).
I’d suggest a real world governing body could have a lower house which is elected by proportional representation and an upper house which protects the interests of countries. But then I get images of Star Wars and having an emperor take over the world
What powers would a democratically elected GA have that the current one doesn’t? If you instead toss existing members out that don’t meet the qualifications then you lose the venue that all countries can participate in. I think the EU is a different case where there are strong trade reasons for members to want to join.
I think the basic formulation is back to front.
Power is not defined in the quote. So here’s a few cats among the pigeons… Certainly the experience of oppression, army shootings, police bashings or electoral fraud are local, still bound to the state. Education systems, transport systems, courts health are local. Trades unions are local. Collectives are often local* but exceptions below. I argue therefore that power is still generally local.
So what ‘power’ are we talking about that is global. Oh that’s right the market… silly me, well market forces still have divided markets. Try downloading from itunes in Brazil and see what I mean. HIV/Aids drugs are differentially priced in different markets and a left hand drive car will never be popular in Australia until the local powers decide that we all now drive on the right. So markets are partially global and partially local. Economics and the Market are very influential but the market does not shoot anyone or imprison them. The Market has INFLUENCE, admittedly a lot of it, but do not mistake influence for power.
Increasingly markets are being regulated by aggregates of states ie NAFTA or the EU so it would appear that they are not beyond the reach of the law.
* exceptions to politics being local – Finally politics is becoming globalised, net2, and the more traditional forms of international co-operation between no-government bodies ie trades unions, or health care users are bringing much of politics into global strategies that use local power.
Ok that’s my 2 cents worth. happy organising everybody
Right now the UN is more a venue for national governments to coordinate (or not as the case may be) action. This is not quite the same as “countries discussing issues”. This is precisely why the UN cannot presently address the “genuine powers” mentioned in the original post.
World government
… not in our lifetimes – and I am still pretty young!
No new powers – that would require a change to the UN Charter. Also, no member states would be kicked out of the GA. It’s just if they try to elect reps, but don’t meet minimum democratic standards (universal suffrage, secret ballots – basic stuff) then your state can’t join the democratic caucus within the GA. My point with the EU was that it became a status thing for many states to join the EU and so they made internal structural changes to qualify. I am guessing the same would happen with regard to the democratic caucus.
There’s a certain confusion about the phenomena of eroding democracy or the decay of States or whatever. George Monbiot outlined this quite well in Captive State where the Blair government has colluded with carious multinational corporation to grant them monopolies at public expense. Eric Hobsawm’s latest book likewise bemoans the erosion of State power in the face of multinational forces.
.
Contrawise John Pilger rejects this view and notes that the omniscience of multinational corporations comes on the spike of the US state which is much more powerful than before.
.
So what happens? I think there’s a general lack of faith institutions and a resignation to apathy generally. Politicians, whose ethos has become increasingly morally vacuous, rely on this. Blair’s third-way, like Clinton’s triangulation were simply the mantras of people who were at once both morally self-righteous and bankrupt at the same time.
.
After the Left’s social victories and economic defeats there’s nowhere left to go. And many people who’re vaguely left-wing, who’re opposed to, for example, the collusions between corporate power and high government, or to the use of military and commercial force against the really powerless in the third world, or who have misgivings about the talk of growth and prosperity in the context of streets ever more clogged with homeless people… many of these people simply switch off because the problems seem overwhelming.
.
Or they become activists and demand rights that don’t exist via modes (like marching) that are purely symbolic. Or they join political parties and play that game.
.
My view is that the ideological spectrum is being wrent asunder and that many of our hereto cherished ideas will not serve us well in the century to come. I think also that new alliances are likely to form and that religious thinking secular or God-bothering is likely to make an unpleasant return to centre stage at some point.
.
Meantime a cursory look at military alliances from Poland down through to Indonesia show clearly the front lines of the 3rd World War should we be careless enough to let it happen.
.
Confronted by the spectacle of of many on the Left simply ignoring geopolitical realities in furtherance of petty point scorig and the extraordinary spectacle of the Right simple refusing to face the fact that neo-liberalism brought the economy crashing down around our heads, well, all I can say is Stupid Fucking Monkeys. Cause that’s what we are. As Supertramp sang:
.
Who are these men
Of lust, greed and glor
Rip off the mask
And let’s see
.
But that’s not right!
Of Lord. What’s the story?
Well there’s you
And there’s me
World government
… not in our lifetimes – and I am still pretty young!
.
The trouble with the UN is that it’s both a Utopian proto-global parliament and a Westphalian style Great Power alliance. The usual vested interests have corrupted it. And the face off between the veto-bearing powers on one hand and various ridiculous spectacles (like Libya chairing a human rights committee) on the other make it seem preposterous.
.
However it is an improvement on the League of Nations.
.
The global economic crisis will probably move the world closer to global governance. But I doubt that nation-states are willing to give up their sovereignty as yet. Most places till have yet to develop a democratic culture assuming they will, and the world is fragmented into regions of influence with mutual hostilities.
.
My guess: Another war will tear the Earth a new orifice and we’ll start all over. Again.
The trouble with the UN is that it is a gang of sovereign countries, each one of whom puts its own national interest ahead of the interests of humanity and the planet.
As has been pointed out above, the UN needs a lower house, a Legislative Assembly of the World, directly elected by all the people of the world. The LAW should have representatives from each country in proportion to population, rounded up to help out the little guys, with each country’s delegation elected by proportional representation to represent the range of interests within each nation.
As with any sovereign power, its authority would depend on its legitimacy.
We now have global problems, a global economy, global diseases, and global corporations. We need a global government to maintain global order and rule of law.
How do we get there? I have no idea, but it must come.
Wayne – The idea of a world parliament is beset with problems. Consider just one.
.
We institute a House of Reps there (somehow). Say it has X number of seats. How are these filled? By direct election? Well there’s the rub. Australia for example has 21 million souls. Indonesia more than ten times that. Are the election to be proportionate? Will seats be managed according to nation? Or will seats be aggragates of populated sectors regardless of the the sovereignty of local states? Would Australians vote for a seat alongside a slice of the Indonesian, East Timorese, Papuan people. Will the same person represent Serbia and Croatia. England and Ireland?
.
Or do nation-states each have a seat. They do so already in the general assembley. Our rep nominally represents 21 million people altho’ we don;t for for ‘em directly. How many people does the Zimbabwean rep represent? Answer: One.
.
See the difficulties?
Adrien, you’ve got to think outside of (or rather alongside) the state framework. Why do these representatives have to represent states?
.
What about Monbiot’s suggestion of 600-odd parliament, with each constituency representing 10M voters? Drawing up the constituency boundaries could be difficult, but there’s no reason why it has to be along national boundaries.
.
What do the boundaries between constituencies within the UK represent?
.
Not sure I agree with you about “democratic culture” either, though unfortunately I tend to think you’re right about major conflict before institutional change.
That’s right, Adrien!
As opposed to say, democracy in the US or in Australia, which is a doddle.
Zimbabwe has no vote at the UN Security Council.
The Global Parliament of the UN will be different from the General Assembly in that a place like Zimbabwe would be suspended from voting until it had completed a minumum number of strictly audited compliance measures.)
To understand the Global Parliament – think FIFA not the General Assembly. (FIFA with a human face, that is.)
Wbb/Sandman -
.
Wasn’t talking about Zimbabwe on the UNSC.
.
The problem of a global parliament is that, if you allocate seats representatively, you risk either creating a massive assembly that’s too unwieldy and/or you may be est6ablishing seats for populations hostile to one another thus creating dissent. Many states themselves haven’t developed democracy, they may not. If you exclude non-democratic nations you’ll be excluding China and Russia for starters. What will that lead to.
.
States follow the development of economic zones. City-states originally emerged to protect trade between nearby productive communities. The economic systems grow the states follow. For obvious reason global governance seems closer now tahn its ever been. But those questions I’ve asked are serious and need to be answered to make it work.
.
In my opinion it’s not the time yet. However we should remember that liberal-democracy was once a drawing board pipe dream.