Research

Trade and Globalisation

Op-ed

Democracy in a time of transboundary problems

13 Apr 2016 - 10:36
Source: Flickr / Ryan Healy

Everybody claims to be in favour of democracy. But what does democracy mean when most contentious issues are transboundary rather than internal issues? In contrast to what one might expect, the answer has to be sought at the international rather than at the national level.

Let us start with looking at democracy at the national level. The essence of democracy is that people have a say in the way they are governed by choosing their political leaders in free elections. In addition referenda can be held to decide on specific questions. All this can work out well as long as a government deals with internal matters.

However, nowadays only few issues are of a purely internal nature. Take for example monitoring farming. At first sight, that might seem an internal matter, but if the Netherlands would be slow in reacting to an outbreak of bird flu, its neighbours would feel the consequences; and if Morocco would be too lax on the use of insecticides, Dutch people eating Moroccan oranges might fall ill.

Therefore, how democratic would it be if Dutch voters decide on sanitary measures for their poultry that are of direct influence on the citizens of other European states? Or how democratic would it be if Dutch voters would block a association agreement that the governments of 500 million other Europeans have agreed to?

Let us make a thought experiment and presume that all democracies would introduce the possibility of national referenda that could lead to the withdrawal of previous consent of both government and parliament. And let us assume that parties in other counties would follow the Dutch example and would promote a No-vote, not on the merits of the case, but for other reasons? It requires little imagination that this could easily lead to international chaos.

So what is the alternative? Politicians and political parties will have to face the truth that we no longer live in sovereign states that are free to decide what to do. Those times are long gone. No matter whether a state is member of the EU or not, it has to accept a large number of standards and rules, not because these rules are legally binding (they often are not), but because there is no practical alternative, just as a traditional Englishman who wants to drive on the left will experience when he visits the continent. This is even true for a powerful country like the United States. Take for example the Law of the Sea Convention and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The American Congress has refused to ratify both treaties, nevertheless the US government respects both treaties in practice.

Does this mean that we are now subjected to a global undemocratic elite? No, in fact the global decision process is about as democratic as a process involving seven billion people can be. Take for example the Climate Change Conference that took place last year in Paris. The chosen representatives of every country could participate and the preparations and negotiations took place in a transparent manner that could be an example for many national democracies.