Episode 10 - A WORLD PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY

This episode is a sequel to the previous Episode 9. Here we consider the importance of ensuring that a World Parliament that has proper democratic legitimacy.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Sovaida 0:08

Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast dedicated to envisioning a better world and to infusing hope that we can make the principled choices to build that world. This episode is a sequel to Episode 9, in which we discussed the need for the creation of a world parliament. In this episode, we consider the need for the world parliament to have proper democratic legitimacy. Today I would love to continue the conversation that we started during the last episode about the imperative need for creating a world parliament. Last time we talked about the fact that this was in a matter of some urgency because we need a collective decision making body that has the requisite powers to tackle the seemingly intractable global challenges of our time. Challenges such as climate change, the global pandemic, the threat of a nuclear war, genocide, and on we go. There are many of these challenges. We discussed four particular powers that this world parliament really ought to have. But the key one that I want to remind all of us about is the authority to pass binding international legislation in certain very narrow spheres in which Nations and people have a collective interest, really areas in which the only solutions to these problems can be crafted collectively. No one nation can go it alone, no two or three nations or ten or fifteen or twenty can solve, for instance, the problem of climate change. We all have to lend a shoulder and take it seriously. Today we're coming to another really important element when crafting this World Parliament. That element is the importance of ensuring that this body, this world parliament, has democratic legitimacy. In other words, that it truly represents the people and nations of the world, not just some segment of them. This is one of the obstacles that currently stands in the way of the system we have, namely the UN system. The United Nations General Assembly not only lacks the power, as we discussed last time, to pass binding international legislation on all nations in critical areas like climate change or dealing with global pandemics as we've so painfully experienced lately. But there's a second obstacle that hinders it and that is that it suffers from what people call a democratic deficit. That's because the members of the General Assembly of the UN are essentially government appointees. They represent the governments, the executive branches of the governments, who appoint them and put them there. And the truth is that many of these folks are often put in place to thank them for some service they've rendered. It's often a plum job. They get, to come to New York City and enjoy some of the perks. That's not to say that they all fall into that category, but generally. This absence of democratic legitimacy has also been another real problem that has hampered the efficacy and the effectiveness of the work of the UN General Assembly, even though it also is basically hampered by the fact that it can only pass resolutions in the form of recommendations to other nation states, but doesn't have the power to bind them with its decisions. Now the good news is that over the last several years there have been a growing number of people who are starting to acknowledge that we need to think in terms of establishing a world parliament. It's a beautiful thing to behold, this growing unity of shared vision, which is so important for such an important undertaking, and it's only when we can establish this shared vision that we can then move on to shared action. I think this is a really important conversation in which all of us at the grassroots need to be involved and engaged. Why? So that we can elect the kinds of leaders who will the creation of such a body, a reality. That's why I am raising this conversation here in today's episode. It's a really important one, and we really need to raise our collective consciousness, educate ourselves and educate others. I'm going to share with you some thoughts and facts that I think may shed light on this whole process, and I hope that you will share it with your friends and circles and colleagues. Here I want to share with you what some of the main schools of thought are about creating a world parliament, and then I want to share with you my own reflections and thoughts on this matter. At the outset, I'm going to start by telling you that I don't believe that any of the proposals that I'm about to share with you go far enough. or fast enough, given the urgency of our global crises, particularly crises like climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the pandemic, all of which are existential. In other words, they have the power to threaten our very survival as a human race. And so it's time for us to craft urgent solutions. The first proposal out there that's been around for a while. It was actually proposed in 2015; so it's been six years. Is for a UN parliamentary network. The idea is to bring parliamentarians from various national parliaments to the United Nations once a year to share their grassroots concerns from their own nations with the General Assembly and basically inject some of these concerns from their countries into the deliberations of the UN General Assembly. It is envisioned it would really serve as an advisory body to the UN General Assembly. The problem here is that, first of all it doesn't address the decision making deficit. You'd have a UN parliamentary network that would act as an advisory body to the UN General Assembly, which itself essentially functions as an advisory body capable only of giving recommendations to nation states without binding them. We've already said that one of the problems with the General Assembly is that it doesn't have the power to make binding decisions, to bind nations, binding legislation. An advisory body to an advisory body just doesn't make sense. And although it's wonderful that these are parliamentarians, still they're not directly elected by their people for the purpose of dealing with these collective global problems. Besides, this whole process is just way too slow, and it just adds another layer of unnecessary complexity. Adding another cumbersome layer of bureaucracy to the UN system doesn't dispense with this major problem that the UN General Assembly still wouldn't have the power to pass binding international law. The third problem in terms of the democratic deficit is that we have to ensure that even if we went ahead with this proposal, that these folks who come in as national parliamentarians are truly in touch with grassroots concerns and sentiments and are not relying solely on input from civil society and the private sector. Now, civil society and NGOs, while doing truly wonderful and marvelous work, are, we have to remember, themselves unelected. Essentially, NGOs are self appointed, and they tend to function like lobbying organizations. They don't represent either a majority of people or a minority, and yet by their ability to effectively network and mobilize their members, they can often wield disproportionate influence on decision making and shaping global politics and global decision making. They also have their own agendas and sources of funding. So we're back to the whole problem with our political systems, right? Lobbying, the role of money, and funding, and who gets to have input and decision making. What we actually need is a body in which every single human being on the face of the planet has a voice, and we'll come to the proposal at the end that actually captures this. Why should civil society have the ear of international decision makers when the citizenry, you and I and others, don't? The second idea that's out there in the world and that is gaining some traction, is for the creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. The idea is that you would create a second chamber of government to the United Nations. The UN General Assembly would be essentially representative of the executive branches of the government, but then this second chamber would be made up of either parliamentarians, like we saw with the network, or be directly elected by the people in various countries, which makes it closer to addressing the question of the democratic deficit. It makes it more democratically legitimate, but again, this body, this UN Parliamentary Assembly, would serve as an advisory body to the General Assembly, which itself is an advisory body. It still wouldn't solve the major problem that the General Assembly would not have the power to pass binding international legislation in fields and areas that we absolutely needed, especially, again, climate change, the global pandemic, nuclear proliferation. The arguments made by folks who advocate for this is, "Hey, this is like the European Union. They created a common assembly, which is today known as the European Parliament, that served the European community and its initial sister communities, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Community. But that's a very different story from what we have today. The situation in Europe was very different because the European Communities already had a very strong legislative and executive arm. They had the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, which we still have today, that had the authority to propose, pass and enforce laws that bound the member states within the European Community and now the European Union. So it made sense to want to create a common assembly or a European Parliament that would inject the voice of citizens into the decision making process, and to start by giving it a consultative role, which has now evolved over time into a co decision making role and co decision making powers. By contrast, at the international level, there are no institutions resembling either the European Council of Ministers, or the European Commission, in their authority to propose international legislation. We're back to the same problem. So it begs the question, the value to be gained by adding another purely consultative body to a mix of institutions that themselves are consultative, that lacks decision making powers. The third idea that I've recently come across is that we should start with NATO and just expand it to eventually create an increasingly global security organization I see several problems with that, mainly the fact that NATO is already severely politicized and has created disunity in the world by virtue of the fact that it was created to stand against Russia, formerly the Soviet Union, in what was a Cold War. So it's going to be very hard to use NATO as a way of bridging that gap of disunity, and really bringing the various parts of the world together. It's also an extremely politicized institution. Therefore, we'll have a hard time with building unity. And the third really critical point is, we're back to the problem of NATO does not have the power to pass legislation that affects things like climate change or the global pandemic. Just having a security organization doesn't respond to the urgent needs of today like climate change, the global pandemic. I know I sound like a broken record. The global economic recession, terrorism, genocide, etc. The fourth proposal is one that I warmly recommend and put forward that addresses three concerns. It addresses the problem of the democratic deficit, the problem that we lack collective decision making institutions that can create international laws that bind all nations, and thirdly, the problem of the urgency of moving forward because of the critical nature of the global challenges facing us. And if you're in any doubt, think about what we've been going through with COVID. Here is the proposal that I put forward. First, in terms of addressing democratic deficit it is time for us to create a world parliament, world legislature, which is directly elected by the citizens of each nation in proportion to the population of each country. Secondly, that election should ideally be confirmed by the executive branches, by the governments of each of those countries. Look, we live in places where we elect the members of our local councils, of our state legislatures, of our national legislatures. Given that we now live in an interconnected world, doesn't it make sense that we would also elect members of a world parliament that has the power to create binding laws in certain narrow areas. The second is to create a body that is capable of legislating initially in very narrow areas. in which the collective interests of humanity are at stake. For instance, a body that's capable of passing climate change legislation on the kinds and amounts of energy that we can use to mitigate the problems with climate change or to deal with the global pandemic. Pick two or three small areas and give this body, that's directly elected by the citizens of the world, power in these very narrow spheres so as not to scare people off that, "Oh my gosh they have so much power over us." Once, over time, as this body develops its capacity and its confidence and wins the trust of the international community, we can then consider adding to its powers in further areas where the collective interests of humanity are at stake, and areas that require swift and effective collective decision making. This proposal also addresses the question of urgency. We can start today crafting a world parliament that can address the urgent needs of humanity today, rather than thinking long term about layering all these new institutions on that actually don't solve the problem and don't have the teeth to pass the kinds of laws that we need at the international level to administer the affairs of humanity to keep us all safe and secure. That was the third point that time is of the essence. Albert Einstein a long time ago recognized the problem that we had with the UN General Assembly and it's a democratic deficit. He famously said that the moral authority of the UN would be considerably enhanced if the delegates were elected directly by the people. Here was a thinking human being, who was not an international relations specialist and was not a political scientist, but could see it was so obvious that we needed to move to this next stage. We haven't yet. Now is the time to go ahead and do it. All right, in closing, isn't it worth focusing on the global plan of education to raise awareness and create unity of vision, like the Department of State did? In one of the previous episodes we talked about this program that the State Department in the U. S. crafted to bring along the people of the United States and educate them to rally public opinion in support of a United Nations that had the power of to use armed force if necessary to maintain peace in the world. We need to create a similar program of global education to raise consciousness amongst all of us about the need for creating a world parliament that has democratic legitimacy and that has the power to bind all nations with international legislation in certain narrow spheres of endeavor. The final thought I'll leave you with is this. The image that comes to my mind is that we have a tsunami coming our way, right? A tsunami of global challenges, of global crises, of threats. There's poverty and the extremes of wealth and poverty. There's so much social injustice. There's racism and sexism. There's all the global challenges we talked about: egregious human rights abuses, the threat of nuclear war, on and on. Yet we're still thinking, "Oh, let's go really slowly, and let's start by putting a few sandbags down, and then we'll think about it and see how we're doing with the sandbags. Maybe we build a wall that's a meter high, and then maybe two meters, and eventually move to 10 meters. Meanwhile, the tsunami is going to come and eliminate all of these barriers. We have to start thinking really big. We have to take bold and radical and new action. We need to think outside the box. In fact, as I like to say, we need to eliminate the box altogether, because that box and the kinds of thoughts and perspectives that got us into these problems need to be completely swept away and replaced by new mindsets, which we've talked a lot about in these episodes, and new habits. So that is all I want to say. I also want to remind you that if you like the material that you're hearing here, a lot of this and a lot more is covered in the latest book that we've put out, which is called The Alchemy of Peace here is the cover. It's available on Amazon wherever in the world you reside. Please do take a look. Tell your friends about it, and also please join us, subscribe for free to our YouTube channel. You'll see this down below on the ticker. Okay, so let us move on and let me pull up the comments. Okay, so here's somebody who's a little skeptical, totally understandably. The global crisis of World War II, that had led to daily deaths of hundreds of thousands did not awaken the dormant, sleeping, apathetic masses who are either in the middle of war or away from it. You may recall that, in one of our episodes, we talked about this perspective that humanity as a collective whole is like an individual going through various stages of developmental growth: from infancy, becoming a toddler, then a tween, and then a youth, and then eventually becoming mature adult, and that we as a collective whole are now in the turbulent throes of a turbulent adolescence. All of these steps that humanity has taken, specifically, those taken in the aftermath of the Second World War, were really critical, valuable, and important steps in the process of humanity evolving and growing. For instance, to take the European Union that we alluded to today, we talked about the steps taken in Europe created an amazing laboratory, namely what we know today as the European Union, that is still acting as a laboratory. It was because of the death and destruction brought about in Europe as a result of the Second World War that the community's six nations got together and created the European Coal and Steel Community. I love talking about this, but I will cover it in one of the future episodes, probably next session. This was a big step for many reasons. We were able to, for the first time, create a supranational organization. Not an international, but supranational. I'll explain more about this next session. But most importantly, this organization that evolved over time into the European Union brought lasting peace to Europe, which the nations had been at loggerheads and had fought repeated wars, and we'd had two world wars as a result. So that was an important step from which we learned a lot. As a result of the Second World War, we also created the United Nations. And yes, it is a very flawed organization, given the needs of humanity today. But it was such an important step towards this maturity that we are now ready for. It no longer serves us in many ways. It does serve us in a whole bunch of ways. It rendered amazing services to humanity, but it's not entirely fit for purpose, which is why we're having these conversations about, the need for a world parliament with certain powers and democratic legitimacy. Think about it. We have to learn to crawl before we learn to walk, before we learn to run, and then, jump and completely compete in marathons and so on. It's a process, and we shouldn't undervalue the steps. Okay, I see a lot of comments. I want to give other people an opportunity to talk, but you're welcome to go and look in the comments. Somebody very enthusiastic. Thank you. A great question from Vasu Mohan. Can you share how we can create political will to create the legislative body? Political will, in my mind, can be created by changing mindsets. Really starts with creating a new understanding of what's going on in the world today. It's really the reason why I wrote this book and started the series. You can give nations and peoples a perfect plan for how to solve a certain problem. We see this with the global pandemic. But very often they won't be motivated and won't actually take on board these amazing suggestions. The reason is the lens through which they view what's going on, the lens through which they interpret and understand what's happening. One of the new lenses is instead of saying, "Oh my gosh, globalization has been a massive problem in the world. Look at it. It's caused so much suffering." To switch that lens and say, "Oh, wow. Globalization has really made us a single organism that is so interconnected, is going to be prone to systemic risks like a body that is prone to cancer that spills into all of the body or other autoimmune diseases, as opposed to something that's localized in the body." If we know that we're now subject to systemic risks, what can we do to create a global infrastructure in the form of a new system of global governance that addresses the systemic risks like climate change and the threat of nuclear holocaust and so on. These are really systemic risks that we face. Another new mindset is the one that I just talked about. There is hope. We can't afford to be helpless and dismayed and distressed and give up, because once our energy gets depleted and we feel that helplessness and despondency and anxiety and, worse, are looking to blame some group who has caused these problems, then we don't have the energy or the political will or motivation to get up and do anything. The third way of creating political will that I feel very strongly about is that we, at the grassroots, need to educate ourselves. We need to raise our own consciousness and shift our own mindsets. This is part of the work that you and I are doing here today, and that hopefully, we each then take out into the world and spread. Once we change mindset, we change culture at the grassroots. And once we change culture, we then start to develop the habit of electing fit leaders who are capable of have the political will to be courageous, to see reality as it is, to be honest with us, to be transparent, to take us into their confidence, to listen to our needs, and to create to take the action that is necessary to address these global challenges. These are just a few ideas that I hope help respond to your question. Okay. Thank you, Joe Ganey, for giving us a perspective of an 88 year old and highlighting that there has been a huge difference in America and outlooks with respect to the globe. And that there was little world view before the First World War. And this concept that we're part of a global community that we're interconnected has grown. We're not totally there, but again, everything's a process. I think one of the challenges that we face as a humanity, and I think it, we're especially prone to this in the developed world, whatever that means, the more materialistic world where we have more material goods available to us more easily, is that we tend to want quick fixes to everything. We also tend to see everything in terms of black and white. Whereas a lot in life is really gray. It's about gradations, and most importantly, it's about process. So I like to define success in life, whether it is in my individual life or in the life of a community, global, national or local, as the progressive realization of a worthy goal. The goal that we are striving towards here in these conversations is the unification of humanity and bringing peace to the world. That is a worthy goal in my mind, and I think most of us, hopefully all, will agree. And as long as we're taking steps that move us in the direction of that worthy goal, then we are successful. We do have to be mindful that at any given moment we'd have choice collectively and individually, and to the extent that we exercise that choice wisely, we will attain worthy goals more quickly, but we can also create obstacles on our own path. And we see that a lot in the history of humanity. We take four steps forward and three steps back. We created a League of Nations. It was meant to put an end to war. It didn't quite succeed. We had a Second World War and then we created the United Nations, hoping again to stop war. Now, fortunately, we haven't had another world war yet. Hopefully, we never will. But the danger is then we need to be aware of it, unless we take mindful steps to ensure that never happens. Okay, I think that is it for today. I thank you all for participating. Please feel free to continue dropping comments over the course of the next week part of the hope here is to create a community where we all engage with each other in conversation and take these conversations out into the world and continue them at home. I look forward to seeing you again next week. Take care of yourselves. Thank you for coming. Bye That's all for this episode of Reimagining Our World. I'll see you back here next month. If you liked this episode, please help us to get the word out by rating us and subscribing to the program on your favorite podcast platform. This series is also available in video on the YouTube channel of the Center for Peace and Global Governance, CPGG.