THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT: OPENING THE DOORS TO GLOBAL DECISION-MAKING
There is widespread concern that citizens are being sidelined from having a say in decisions about their welfare taken by inter-governmental organisations (IGOs). This has recently led to new mechanisms apparently aimed at solving the problem. These measures have focused primarily on the role of civil society organisations (CSO’s), but have ignored the role of parliamentarians. Parliamentarians – unlike CSO’s – are democratically elected. As elected representatives they should have responsibilities for holding global decision makers to account.
So why are parliamentarians excluded? There are a number of reasons, including the startling rules of some IGO’s that prohibit parliamentarians from influencing decision-making. However, the main reason is the reluctance of member states to share power with parliamentarians. Things are changing, however, as parliamentarians from around the world are beginning to demand greater power.
What has become known as the “democratic deficit” was analysed a couple of years ago by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) itself, whose then head Mike Moore noted: "If the WTO is to succeed it must reinforce its democratic credentials.” Mr Moore was responding to what he stated was “a very real feeling amongst many people that decisions which are having a fundamental impact upon their lives are being devised behind closed doors."
Unfortunately, the problem was and is not unique to the WTO. Nearly all IGOs operating on the global sphere are suffering from a “democratic deficit”. The problem stems from a disconnect between decisions taken at the global level which impact upon local communities and the power of local communities to hold those decision-makers to account.
The almost exclusive focus up until now on developing new mechanisms to enable global organisations to engage directly with CSOs as a means of closing this gap is undoubtedly important and in need of deepening. However, of equal, if not greater importance, due to their democratic credentials, is the need to strengthen parliamentarians’ ability to hold global organisations to account. Sidelined up until recently, work is just beginning on strengthening the power of this important and often neglected group to do this task.
Flick through the pages of any self-respecting inter-governmental organisation’s annual report and you will be overwhelmed by the amount of engagement these organisations have with civil society organisations, from formal institutional links like the World Bank’s Committee for Non-governmental Organisation’s (NGOs) or the WTO’s NGO forum to project level partnerships and policy level consultations. Seen as important articulators of the views and needs of the most marginalized, engagement with civil society organisations is fast becoming common practice.
The idea is to provide new channels to re-connect the local citizen to the global decision-maker. It is a good one, if, and it is a big if, it is meaningfully carried out and actually enables citizens to really have an impact. Unfortunately, it appears that much of it, at this point in time, is far from meaningful. Work needs to be done to deepen this form of engagement. However, this process, vital though it may be, is no substitute for more democratic means of bridging the divide.
Civil society organisations, though often incredibly well informed and articulate, do not formally represent local communities. Only parliamentarians are democratically elected to represent their constituencies and as such have unparalleled legitimacy to do so. Parliamentarians are also intimately linked with the process of passing decisions taken at the global level into national law, placing them in a position to be able to hold global decision-makers to account.
At present this potential power is hindered because IGOs do not provide good access to information to parliamentarians and informal and formal mechanisms for engagement are extremely limited, especially in comparison to the array of mechanisms available to civil society organisations. As Norbert Mao, a Ugandan MP and member of the African Parliamentary Network on the World Bank, notes, international financial institutions (IFIs) have “historically engaged with the executive branch of governments and the legislative branch has been largely left out of the relationship”. However, he adds: “It is just as important for the World Bank and other IFIs to interact with the legislative branch of governments since it represents the “voice” of the people”.
So why has there been so little engagement with this group? Well, firstly, there are legal blockages, which prevent some IFIs from certain forms of engagement. The World Bank’s articles of association, for example, astoundingly prevent Bank staff from briefing legislative bodies either verbally or in written form. Secondly, parliamentarians have also, until recently, not been as vocal as civil society organisations in demanding a seat at the table. High profile public campaigning by NGOs, for example, have made them a force that simply cannot be ignored. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is a reticence by the member governments to share their power and include parliamentarians in greater engagement at the global level. This appears to still be the major stumbling bloc.
Things are changing though. UK and French parliamentarians, for example, have recently made moves to demand greater accountability of their governments at the global level. The UK Parliament asked Clare Short, former Minister for International Development, to give evidence in parliament on the UK influence in the World Bank. This is the first time this has happened. The French parliament has also recently made an International Monetary Fund (IMF) request for greater money conditional on its government providing an annual account of its activities within this institution. Both initiatives highlight parliamentarians placing pressure on their member governments to provide greater disclosure of decisions taken at the global level.
As for more direct engagement between IGOs and parliamentarians, in 2000 the ‘Parliamentary Network on the World Bank’ was established as an independent organisation of key parliamentarians collaborating with the World Bank in order to increase legislative involvement in international development. The network has regional chapters and an Africa chapter was opened this year that will adopt its own regional agenda. The network is looking into how parliamentarians can be more involved in World Bank PRSP processes, amongst other things. Other global organisations are watching with interest (read the IMF) on how this relationship develops in recognition that it is no longer possible to ignore parliamentarians in global decision-making.
Much more work needs to be done to increase the ability of parliamentarians to do their job and hold global organisations to account. Both parliamentarians along with civil society organisations are important actors in bridging the disconnect between local and global decision-making. Increased disclosure of information from global organisations and greater means of participation and readdress for both of these groups is vital for the future.
* Hetty Kovach is manager of the Global Accountability Project at the One World Trust, Houses of Parliament, London.
* Send your comments on this editorial to
ABOUT THE GLOBAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT:
The One World Trust’s Global Accountability Project (GAP) was started in 2000 and is a unique project assessesing the accountability of inter-governmental organisations (IGOs), transnational corporations (TNCs) and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). At the heart of the project is a novel framework which explains what accountability means and identifies eight core organisational dimensions crucial to fostering greater accountability.
GAP has recently published its first report ‘Power Without Accountability’. The report assesses eighteen of the world’s most powerful organisations including the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The results show wide differences between the organisations, clearly indicating leaders in the field and those that fall behind. For more information about GAP and a full copy of the report please visit http://www.oneworldtrust.org