Centre for Studies in Democratisation
CSD
Students' Working Paper Series
IS THE IDEA OF COSMOPOLITAN DEMOCRACY
MEANINGFUL? AND IS IT ATTAINABLE?
Jack Stevenson
Working Paper n. 4/ 2011
Centre for Studies in Democratisation
Department of Politics and International Studies
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/csd/
The Centre for Studies in Democratisation (CSD) was established at
the University of Warwick in 1992 in response to a growing interest
in the study of democracy at a theoretical and empirical level.
Democratisation has become a central political theme and features
now prominently on the foreign policy agenda of western countries.
Members of CSD are seeking to understand why, how and when
democracies emerge, sustain or collapse. They also investigate the
reasons why democratisation can sometimes be problematic.
Do not hesitate to contact us for more information!
Renske Doorenspleet (Director):
Renske.Doorenspleet@warwick.ac.uk
Or visit our website:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/csd/
Abstract
Cosmopolitan Democracy is a theory that analyses the nature of democracy
within the context of a globalised world. It posits that due to an increasingly
interconnected and overlapping international system, the ability of the
democratic nation-state to permit its citizens individual autonomy and selfdetermination is seriously undermined. Cosmopolitan Democratic theorists
believe that in order to overcome this ‘democratic deficit’ now found within
the globe, a new form of democratic governance needs to be created.
Institutions at and above the level of the nation-state are called for, in order
to allow the individual the formal and substantive right to autonomy and
self-determination. This essay will argue four points. First it will show that
cosmopolitan democracy presents a legitimate and thought-provoking
critique of the current democratic system within the nation-state. Second, it
will highlight the meaningful alternatives Cosmopolitan Democracy
presents to combat this perceived ‘democratic deficit’. Third, it will
highlight the various flaws found within the model of Cosmopolitan
Democracy before arguing that even if such flaws could be addressed, the
inherently undemocratic nature of Capitalism means that the core proposal
of Cosmopolitan Democracy - that an equal level of self-determination
should be had by all - cannot, and will not, be attained whilst positioned
within a Capitalist economic system.
Is the idea of cosmopolitan democracy meaningful? And is it
attainable?
Jack Stevenson
INTRODUCTION
Democracy has had a long and varied existence. It has, as Archbugi states,
experimented with the idea of self-governance for three thousand years
(2010: 312). Over such time it has been seen to ‘change its skin’ in order to
survive. The initial idea of direct participation found within ancient Greece
for instance, when placed within a geographically larger polity, was seen as
impractical and replaced with representative democracy. The need to
formulate new ways to implement democratic governance while still
remaining true to its core principles is at the heart of Cosmopolitan
Democracy (CD). An increasingly globalised and interconnected world, it is
argued, has limited the ability of the democratic state to uphold and enforce
democratic principles. As a result, CD theorists argue that democratic
governance has to again ‘change its skin’ in order to survive, with
democracy now needing to be implemented not just within states, but also
among and beyond them (Archibugi, 2004: 438).
As a political theory, speculation surrounds CD as to whether it can be seen
as a meaningful body of thought (that it produces a logically consistent and
cohesive argument), and whether the overall argument itself can ever be
attained. In relation to such questions, this essay will make three claims. The
first posits that CD presents a meaningful body of thought. The second
1
suggests that although coherent, numerous flaws can be found in relation to
the implementation of democratic principles on a global level. Thirdly, it
will argue that the capitalist system does not allow equal levels of selfdetermination, in turn rendering CD unattainable. This essay will highlight
the criticism CD makes in relation to the nation-state, and how globalisation
has undermined its democratic ability. It will then express how these
undermining tendencies can be countered through the implementation of
democratic institutions that cut across various levels of governance. After, it
will explore the various arguments that suggest theoretical revision is needed
in order for a more credible theory to be produced. Finally, it will show how
the capitalist-economic-system, in which the CD model is placed, produces
political inequalities and undermines democratic processes. As such,
Capitalism denies the CD model its basic proposition of attaining selfdetermination for every individual.
Defining Cosmopolitan Democracy
In order to understand CD, we need to understand the basic idea of
democracy. For CD theorists, the idea of democracy derives its power and
significance from the idea of equal self-determination; that is, from the
notion that members of a political community – citizens – should be able to
choose freely the conditions of their own relationships, and that their choices
should constitute the ‘ultimate legitimation of the form and direction of their
polity’ (Held, 2005: 146). Democracy means ‘rule by the people’, the
determination of public decision-making by equally free members of the
2
political community. The basis of its justification, Held argues, lies in the
promotion and enhancement of autonomy, both for individuals as citizens
and for the collective. In this context, the concept of ‘autonomy’ connotes
the capacity of human beings to reason self-consciously, to be self-reflective
and to be self-determining. It involves the ability to deliberate, judge, choose
and act (or not act as the case may be) upon different possible courses of
action in private as well as public life, ‘bearing the common good in mind’
(Rousseau, 1968 cited in Held, 2005: 146). CD theorists thus examine the
ideals of equal self-determination and individual/collective autonomy in the
context of a globalised world. They argue that contemporary political
communities based on dividing lines between the included and the excluded
within the nation-state are not a suitable model of the democratic
management of public issues in the age of globalisation (Franceschet, 2000:
180). If, for example, the economic actions of one country can affect the
citizens of another without those citizens’ ‘consent’, then the ability for
autonomy and self-determination – democracy – is undermined. The
interconnected and interdependent world that now exists means democracy
within the nation-state is in jeopardy. The state can no longer be seen to hold
autonomy on the decisions that affect its citizens (Held, 2010: 294). In turn,
it is believed that the only way democracy can survive in the form expressed
above, is through its promotion above and beyond the nation-state. It argues
that a range of institutions below and above the level of the state should be
constructed, allowing individuals and communities affected by political,
social and economic decisions the means to participate in, and be
represented within, decisions that affect them: a globally formal and
3
substantiate right to democracy (Archibugi, 2010: 319).
A Criticism of the Democratic Nation-state in Relation to Globalization
and Democratic Peace Theory
The emergence of CD thought, as stated above, comes from a criticism of
the nation-states’ ability to allow individual self-determination within the
contemporary world, and the apparent inability for other, more traditional
political theories to take hold of such issues.
Democracy has traditionally centered on state sovereignty and an
uncritically appropriated perception of a ‘territorially-bounded political
community’ (Holden, 2000: 1). This approach is based on a ‘symmetric’ and
‘congruent’ relationship between political decision makers and the recipients
of political decisions. It is assumed that the fate of a national community is
‘largely in its own hands’, with the core democratic principles of political
participation, representation and accountability developing through an ‘interplay between actors and structures in the nation-state’ (Held, 1997: 240-1).
However, it is argued that networks of political identities have often
overlapped, and have become increasingly apparent under the conditions of
globalisation, which has extended networks of relations and resources within
and across state borders (Hutchings, 1999: 162). An increasing disjuncture
now exists between a state’s claim to sovereignty (and with it the ability to
uphold and enforce democratic principles) and the political actualities. For
example, due to an increasingly globalised economy, multinational
4
companies have emerged. This has had a profound effect on macroeconomic
policies, with corporations shifting their demand for employment to
countries with lower employment costs. The lack of accountability to the
citizens it employs, Hoffman denotes, means that the global economy is not
subject to the principles that apply to relations between individuals and state
(Hoffman, 1995 cited in Falk, 2000: 163). Furthermore, the significant
environmental challenges of global warming, such as resource consumption
and trans-boundary pollution, means that many political issues are no longer
centred foremost around single political communities and cannot be solved
by any one nation-state acting alone (Held, 2010: 294). Political
communities are subsequently locked into a variety of overlapping processes
and structures, leaving democratically elected governments unable to
determine what is appropriate exclusively for their own citizens, and those
citizens in turn unable to determine decisions exclusively for themselves
(Held, 1997: 241).
CD highlights how a globalised world can undermine the democratic belief
in self-determination. It in turn takes issue with current schools of thought
related to democracy promotion. It argues that Liberalists and Neo-realists
have often undermined the basic idea of democracy by promoting the idea
that a global democratic world can be achieved through the promotion and
consolidation of democratic states (Franceschet, 2000: 180). For while an
increasing number of democratic states would certainly ease the struggle for
global democracy and peace, it fails to comprehend/appreciate the political
actualities needed in order for the individual to achieve total autonomy and
5
self-determination in a globalised and interconnected world (Ibid).
This, I would argue, is where much of CD’s strength lies in its pursuit to be
regarded as a serious political theory. It provides genuine ‘food-for-thought’,
correctly highlighting that an increasingly globalised world has the ability to
undermine the sovereignty – and therefore the democratic ability to present
individuals with autonomy and equal self-determination – of the nationstate. It also advances contemporary political thought in relation to
democracy, which has failed to see that while democracy beyond the nationstate remains weak, democracy within the nation-state is weakened as well
(Axtmann, 2002: 101-2).
The Theoretical Model of Cosmopolitan Democracy
Such views have led CD theorists to argue that while democracy has in
general come to be seen by citizens as the most legitimate form of
governance, a ‘democratic deficit’ now exists within the globalised world.
They posit, in a coherent and compelling manner, that if the concept of
democracy is now to survive, a break in the link between democracy and the
nation-state is needed. In the same way that democracy was extended from
the level of the town to that of the state in the 18th century, it should, in the
21st century, be extended from the nation to humankind as a whole; towards
the ‘global citizen’ (Beetham, 1999: 137).
Kant’s Promotion of a Cosmopolitan Law
6
The idea of a global citizen derives from the theoretical framework of
‘cosmopolitan law’ proposed by Kant (Kant, 1970 cited in Habermas, 1997:
113). He believed that although the ‘barriers of national sovereignty were
insurmountable’ (due to an anarchic international system), cosmopolitan law
could be promoted throughout the globe in order to bind states together
through ‘common understanding’ (Ibid). Such common understanding would
come from the concept of ‘universal hospitality’ – the right of a stranger or
foreigner ‘not to be treated with hostility’ when arriving in another country –
being implemented into Republican states’ constitutions (Kant, 1970 cited in
Habermas, 1997: 115). It was argued that individual moral codes were often
dictated by the ideas found within their state constitution. The constitutional
implementation of universal hospitality, it was believed, would allow people
to ‘learn to tolerate one another’s company’ and coexist peacefully, leading
to a ‘universal community’ (Kant, 1970 cited in Habermas, 1997: 113-26).
However, as stated, Kant’s idea of cosmopolitan law centered on a
federation of Republican states (Habermas, 1997: 128). In this sense,
cosmopolitan law reinforces the statist framework of international relations.
The idea of CD, although also working towards the establishment of an
international community, promotes the idea that the right of the global
citizen should be found within his/her ability to act in a completely selfdeterminate and autonomous manner: the universal right to democracy. And
as we have seen, this right cannot be attained if, for economic, cultural, or
other reasons, the quality of the lives of others is shaped and determined in
‘near or far-off lands without their participation, agreement, or consent’
7
(Held, 1997: 244).
Democratic Public Law
Kant’s idea of cosmopolitan law is subsequently replaced by the CD concept
of ‘democratic public law’. This would institutionalise individual and
collective rights and establish a ‘principle of democratic autonomy’ (Ibid).
Driven by an ‘all-affected principle’, CD theorists argue that in order for
individual self-determination to be achieved, decisions should be made
essentially by those that are affected by them (Saward, 2000: 33). In turn, it
argues for the creation of different levels of overlapping and diverse
democratic governance, below and above the level of the state. (Hutchings,
1999: 161). These different levels of governance, found within institutions –
a structure/mechanism of social order, governing behaviour – would ideally
be situated within the realm of the: local, state, interstate, regional and global
(Archibugi, 2004: 446). They would in turn democratically deal – through a
majority voting system – with the different issues and policy questions
related to those political communities found within such levels, whilst still
remaining subservient to, and limited by, the overarching value of
democratic public law (Ibid). Sovereignty would subsequently be ‘stripped
away from the idea of fixed borders and territories’, and democracy
implemented not just within states, but also among and beyond them (Held,
2002: 100). Held presents an interesting example of how such a democratic
model would work in relation to environmental problems:
8
‘factories emitting various forms of toxic waste can be locally monitored and
challenged, nationally regulated and supervised, regionally checked for
cross-national standards and risks, and globally evaluated in the light of their
impact on the health, welfare and economic opportunities of others’ (Held,
1995: 113-114).
The concept of the global citizen is therefore founded within the idea that
each individual should have both the formal and substantive right to selfdetermination. It argues that the global citizen should have the possibility to
participate in, and have their thoughts equally represented within, the
policies and decisions that affect them. And if such principles are not
followed, local-to-global institutions are in place to hold the appropriate
political actors to account. (Held, 1997: 246).
We find within these proposals a meaningful body of thought. For if we
believe that democracy should be defined as self-determination, then, from a
theoretical point of view, the evidence put forward by CD accurately states
that democracy cannot survive in this basic form under the conditions of
globalisation. Instead, democratic institutions are needed below, above, and
among the level of the nation-state. Controlled within the universal
acceptance of democratic governance, these varying levels of institutions are
the only mechanisms that can permit the ‘global right’ of the individual to
have an equal say in the issues and policies that may affect them. However,
while the overall model of CD has stayed the same, the application of the
9
model and at what ‘level’ it should be pursued has varied with each
individual theorist.
How Cosmopolitan Democracy should be Pursued
When hoping to understand the application of CD, the most commonly cited
theorist is Held. He, along with McGrew, suggest that long and short-term
changes should be made within the various levels of perceived governance,
in order to both promote global democracy and help counter those
undemocratic institutions already in place (for a more in-depth account of
such proposals see Held and McGrew, 2007: 105). However, I believe other,
more varied and interesting ideals should be highlighted in order to achieve
a more rounded account of CD thought.
Richard Falk and a ‘Law of Humanity’
Falk for example, expresses a strong commitment to the idea of a global
civil society, believing CD should be promoted primarily through the idea of
a ‘law of humanity’ (1995: 164). For him, a global civil society refers to a
field of action and thought occupied by individual and collective citizen
initiatives that seek to identify and regulate the adverse effects of what he
calls ‘democracy-from-above’ (Ibid). This correctly promotes the fact that
within the globalised world a number of non-democratic, market-driven
tendencies operate. These both protect and promote ‘the flow of strategic
10
resources from South to North’ (Falk, 1995: 169) and in turn promote the
interests of some individuals over others. The ‘law of humanity’ is
subsequently an objective that seeks to identify and regulate the adverse
effects of globalisation-from-above and correct social injustices. It is a
political goal that seeks to benefit the peoples of the world and protect their
long-term interests (Falk, 2000: 170). Action should be undertaken through a
‘transnational sphere of social activism’, in which individual and collective
citizens voluntarily engage through national and transnational nongovernmental institutions. Such involvement, he argues, should be identified
as the process of ‘globalisation-from-below’ (Falk, 1995: 170-172). Falk
posits that CD is the only concept capable of mobilising and unifying the
social forces that constitute global civil society, as it provides the basic
aspirations of ‘peoples everywhere to participate in the processes that are
shaping their lives’ (Falk, 2000: 171). Globalisation-from-below is thus
offered as the most efficient way of achieving a global democracy, with Falk
believing that it would encourage the global civil society to demand for
themselves the establishment of greater mechanisms of democratic
accountability, participation and representation throughout the globe,
bringing about a system of CD (1995: 173).
Daniele Archibugi and a ‘Reform of the UN’
Other CD theorists, however, believe that the application of CD should first
formulate around the reform of the United Nations (UN). Archibugi suggests
that it is ‘neither realistic nor useful to imagine a more democratic globe…
11
without assigning a principle role to the UN’ (1995: 122). This standpoint
posits that the best way to promote democracy both among and above states
is through an international actor. This is because it has the potential to
achieve both the legitimacy and impartiality that can enable it to engage in
states’ internal affairs, whilst having the authority to mediate among them
and the capacity ‘to represent a point of reference for civil society’
(Archibugi et al, 2000: 128). CD theorists ascertain that the UN, while
having achieved an ‘excellent logical construction’, has failed to live up to
the democratic foundations upon which it was built (Archibugi, 1995: 126).
For example, the structure and workings of the UN Security Council
undermines basic democratic principles. The existence of the veto power for
the five permanent members of the Council has meant that a few members
alone hold a substantial amount of power, and may invalidate the decisions
of the majority (Archibugi, 1995: 126). The contradictions found within the
UN are seen as serious institutional obstacles towards global democracy,
limiting its potential to become a globally legitimate, impartial and authorial
institution. If, however, democratic reforms were implemented, it is thought
the UN would be seen as a more democratically legitimate institution. This
would in turn allow it the greater potential to pursue/implement the
institutions and framework needed for CD.
These various perspectives allow for a better understanding on the model of
CD, as they express what needs to be pursued, both by the individual and the
state, in order for a cosmopolitan democratic society to be achieved. We are
again presented with a meaningful argument as to how democracy can be
12
pursued outside the confines of the nation state, and how CD can eventually
become a reality. However, the coherency of a theoretical argument does not
mean that the theory itself is not flawed.
Criticisms of the Cosmopolitan Democratic Model
As already discussed, the model of CD promotes the idea that each
individual has the equal and complete right to participate in, and be
represented within, the political issues that affect them. Those who would
implement such issues should be able to be held to account in order to
legitimate CD. However, the mechanisms promoted by CD theorists to
deliver these rights have come under scrutiny. A number of thoughtprovoking issues can be highlighted, which, in their present state, undermine
the potential effectiveness of the CD model to provide the capability of
equal self-determination for the individual.
Equal Participation
In relation to the idea of participation, CD theorists have failed to take into
account that the sheer complexity of many international matters often puts
issues beyond the immediate capacities of many citizens (Almond, 1950:
139). Along with the reasoning that the average citizen is uninterested in
foreign affairs, Schumpeter claims that whereas in situations such as
13
economic transactions people often experience the results of their decisions
(and mistakes) directly, in the case of political decisions there is no such
feedback mechanism. As a result people lose touch with reality and behave
irresponsibly, with the ‘typical citizen drop[ing] down to a lower level of
mental performance as soon as he enters the political field’ (Schumpeter,
1943, cited in Miller, 2003: 40-41). CD theorists fail to take note of the
remote nature of political affairs – both domestic and foreign – from the
lives, experiences, and familiar knowledge of the ordinary citizen. Without a
relatively equal level of understanding on such issues, the right to equal selfdetermination is undermined. A greater and more robust system of civic
education would subsequently have to be implemented into the global arena,
allowing the global citizen the ability, if they so chose, to better understand
the political, social and economic issues that may affect them. No such
system is mentioned within CD.
Global Representation
The CD also fails to express adequately how voting would be represented,
and how decisions would be best decided. The CD model advocates that
citizens are represented within the democratic system by the principle of
‘majority rule’ (Archibugi, 2010: 320). Decisions are not made by group
consensus but rather the majority determines the position of the whole
citizenry (Axtmann, 2002: 106). However, it is often argued that the
principle of majority rule does not suffice to generate legitimacy of a
14
democratic political system as a whole. It is instead premised on – at least
within the state system of governance – intermediary institutions (Axtmann,
2002: 106). Axtmann argues that these institutions play a central part in
expressing minority groups’ voices across to governments and policy
makers, thereby allowing minority groups a majority voice (Ibid). Without
such institutions, the legitimacy and accountability of the government, at
least in the eyes of minority groups, would be likely perceived as unjust and
a potentially illegitimate form of governance, fragmenting the global
community needed within CD. The application of majority rule is thus
conducive to the defeated minorities’ acceptance of the majority decision
(Ibid). This is again found within the population sizes of different countries,
with the principle of majority rule – one-person-one-vote – leading to small
countries being steadily outvoted by large countries (Dahl, 1999: 31). And
whilst CD theorists seemingly acknowledge such issues (Archibugi, 1995:
153), they present no solution.
This concerning matter would need to be addressed in order for CD to be
seen as a legitimate representative model. CD theorists may do well to
examine the voting system of the European Union. Appointment to the
European Parliament is founded on ‘degressive proportionality’. Although
no precise formula exists, bigger member states agree to accept fewer seats
than they would receive if the total were divided according to population
size, so as to ‘allow for better representation of less-densely populated
states’ (European Parliament Composition, 2007). A similar system would
obviously allow for a more represented model of CD to exist. Of more
15
concern however, is the little consideration for the different levels of
intensity some situations may impose on individuals. For example, global
warming affects every citizen within the CD model. Yet it does not take into
account the intensity such an issue has on, for instance, the Association of
Small Island States (AOSIS), which represents countries that, according to
some predictions, may literally disappear due to its effects (Saward, 2000:
38). The CD model seems to neglect the levels of affect that individuals and
communities may feel in relation to policies and decisions. No criteria is in
place to define who should and should-not be seen to be affected by certain
issues. For what of the individuals/communities who believe issues are of
consequence to them, and others who perceive them not to be? As with the
size of a country, a similar system allowing for the representation of issues
based on their significance to individuals and communities is needed in
order to legitimate CD.
An Accountable Global Force
Finally, the accountability that the CD model promotes can also be called
into question. As Beetham posits, the weak point of CD is that no
mechanism exists to ensure that global institutions can be held/made
accountable (1999: 140). Held and McGrew suggest that one of the longterm transformations that can help the global community move towards CD
is through the creation of a permanent military/peacekeeping force. This
would allow the model of CD to be upheld and enforced throughout the
globe (2007: 218). As has been suggested, the UN is often seen as the
16
closest institution acceptable to the model of CD. However, it has not been
able to stop the various levels of abuse committed by its peacekeeping
forces. For example, in 2005 UN troops were accused of rape and sexual
abuse in Sudan, and again in 2007 in the Ivory Coast (BBC, 2008). This
shows how even institutions created to maintain human rights and
democratic principles could act in an exploitative and repressive manner. CD
theorists do not show how the mechanism for democratic accountability – a
global military force – could in itself be deemed democratically accountable,
and not able to commit the same abuse seen within UN peacekeeping
missions. It may in turn have to revise whether every aspect of the global
world can be held accountable to the democratic principles it promotes.
By highlighting these underlying flaws, it can be shown that while CD is
indeed a coherent theoretical approach to democracy within the globalised
world, it is not without its imperfections. Thus, until such flaws and
inconsistencies can be addressed, CD will remain unpersuasive to many.
However, even if these problematic critiques could in some way be
overcome, the CD model is inherently incompatible with the economic
system of Capitalism. By placing itself within such a system, the core ideal
of democracy – that each individual have the equal right to selfdetermination – is undermined. Due to this, reforming the model of CD is
rendered meaningless, because the attainability of its basic ideal cannot be
met: Capitalism always permits an unequal level of self-determination to be
achieved.
17
Capitalism and the Unattainable Model of Cosmopolitan Democracy
Although these ideas are not new (Marx and Engels, 1848: 5-55),
contemporary theorists continue to be concerned with Capitalism and its
ability to undermine democratic processes (Dahl, 1989: 324-325). Extensive
disparities in income and wealth are inevitable in a capitalist system and
often lead to political inequalities at the level of the individual. Endless
studies have shown that in every liberal democracy, people with higher
incomes and those with better and longer education – often linked to wealth
– are significantly more likely to vote in elections or contact politicians than
people of low income and education (Verba, et al., 1995 cited in Bernhagen,
2009: 113). Furthermore, economic inequalities can generate resentment and
frustrations among the disadvantaged, consequently eroding the sense of
community and legitimacy upon which democracy – and subsequently CD –
is frequently thought to rest (Gorg and Hirsch, 1998: 586). More
importantly, economic resources can be translated into political resources.
According to Olson, a ‘relatively small number of group members combined
with a concentration of benefits’ have much stronger incentives to organise
for, and achieve, political action than larger groups, such as consumers or
taxpayers, over whom ‘both costs and benefits are more widely dispersed’
(Olson, 1965 cited in cited in Bernhagen, 2009: 114). It seems that even if a
large group of individuals could ‘pool’ their wealth in order to compete with
these elites, ‘collective action theory’ – with its various forms of
coordination problems and the prisoners’ dilemma – reiterates that a small
group of business elites would normally be more effective in ascertaining
18
political goals (Gilbert, 2006: 3). This issue is also tied to the fact that
democratic state power is often dependent on its ability to promote
conditions conducive to capital accumulation, in order to produce revenue
from the taxation it subsequently achieves (Roper, 2007). The need for
nation-states to create profitable environments for investors often means that
they promote policies that are primarily focused around, and look after, the
political and economic interests of businesses. This can, over time, affect the
‘quality of democracy’, preventing political reforms that extend rights and
liberties to others and lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ in political, social and
environmental standards (Morlino, 2004 cited in cited in Bernhagen, 2009:
114). These issues undoubtedly challenge the ability of substantive
autonomy and self-determination to be sustained or even produced within
the global arena, where capital is better placed than labour to organise
politically (Roper, 2007). Theorists such as Held do seem to take notice of
these economic requisites needed to achieve an equal level of democracy for
all. Nevertheless, the CD model suggests that these are secondary issues
compared to political reform and can be easily overcome. It promotes that a
‘Charter of Rights and Obligations’ be globally implemented, which would
constitutionally guarantee two fundamental economic rights; basic income
and ‘access avenues’ to the decision-making apparatus, and to two forms of
economic policy; increased social control of global investment and controls
on short-term capital flows (Held, 1995 cited in Smith, 2003: 6-7).
These policies/rights hope to reduce the level of conflict economic
inequality produces and reduce the unequal level of political power business
19
elites hold (Held and McGrew, 2002: 136). Such economic reforms would
undoubtedly improve the lives of millions of people, and to strive for
equality is always a commendable thing. However, due to the issues raised
above, these policies would still fail to produce an equal level of selfdetermination and autonomy upon which the theoretical model of CD is
based. This can be expressed through the work of Smith and his criticism of
the two fundamental economic rights Held promotes.
Basic Income
Smith asserts that even if CD could attain relatively high levels of wages
throughout the global economy that did not undermine the capital/wagelabour relation, and over-accumulation crises did not occur (two basic
arguments against the attainability of a basic level of income), a baseline of
income ‘below which people are not allowed to fall does not, in itself,
remove economic inequality’ (2003: 12). Smith posits that even if minimum
standards of income were set, there would still be economic inequality, as
such a baseline simply allows inequality to start at a higher point (Ibid).
Access Avenues
Furthermore, Smith proposes that ‘access avenues’, in which labourers,
local communities, consumers etc., are granted access to, and codetermination of, sites of industrial and financial decision-making that are
20
incompatible with the production relations that underlie the capitalist world
market (Smith, 2003: 13). He promotes Stiglitz’s theory of a ‘principal-agent
problem’ within Capitalism, which refers to the relationship between
investors and managers. It suggests that managers often pursue their own
interests, which at times conflict with investors.
However, if such
incidences occur, a series of mechanisms within Capitalism – such as ‘due
diligence’ legislation – tend to realign such interests (Stiglitz, 1994 cited in
Smith, 2003: 14). Held’s access avenues is an attempt to view
management/labour relations in terms of the principal-agent problem, with
managers furthering their interests in a manner consistent with their wagelabourers (Smith, 2003: 14). But as Smith depicts, ‘what of cases where the
perceived self-interest of investors and labourers are in essential conflict?
And of which group would management then consider itself the agent?’
(Ibid). These questions are answered by another question. Does the
workforce, under the capitalist system Held envisions, have the power to
appoint/change/reward its management or the legal rights to sue under ‘due
diligence’? The answer to this is no. The capitalist system under the CD
model continues to give social and political powers to business elites, and
only provides workers with the power to ‘negotiate’ (Smith, 2003: 14-15).
We are consequently left with a model whose reformist ideals still leave us
with an inherently undemocratic capitalist system that proscribes a varying
level of political power to different groups of individuals based on wealth
and income. This is not to say that I propose or call for the revolutionary
overthrow of Capitalism. But such an argument does suggest that the CD
21
model, in relation to its core proposition that an equal level of selfdetermination and autonomy can be globally achieved, is, I believe,
unattainable within a capitalist system. As such, an unequal level of selfdetermination and autonomy denotes that an equal level of participation,
representation and accountability cannot be achieved.
CONCLUSION
The CD model of thought presents an interesting analysis and critique of
democracy when placed next to an increasingly globalised world. It correctly
shows how through an ever-growing and interconnected world, the idea of
equal self-determination and individual autonomy has been seriously
undermined, with overlapping political communities suggesting that such
democratic values can no longer be perused solely within the nation-state. It
also provides a meaningful and logical body of thought as to how such
issues can be resolved. Though various, overlapping levels of governance
and institutions, the ability of the individual to participate in, and be
represented within, the issues and decisions that affect him/her would
certainly be able to address and reinstate the idea of autonomy and selfdetermination within the globe. However, such a theory, as with any theory,
is not without its critics and flaws. Numerous revisions need to be made to
the current body of CD thought in order to address the issues highlighted.
Without this, the model of CD will never be able to completely commit to
the democratic ideals of participation, representation and accountability.
Nevertheless, in spite of the coherent arguments found within CD thought, I
22
believe that its basic idea of democracy – an equal level of selfdetermination for all – is undermined by the current economic system within
which it positions itself. Through extensive disparities in wealth and income,
as well as the ability for economic resources to be translated into political
resources, Capitalism always has the ability to produce political inequalities
at the level of the individual. As such, I conjecture that global democracy, at
least in the form CD gives it, cannot be attained. As Roper states, if the form
of democracy prompted by Held is to be implemented, it needs to be
fundamentally anti-capitalist in nature (Roper, 2007).
23
Bibliography
Almond, G. (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy, New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Archibugi, D. (1995) ‘From the United Nations to Cosmopolitan
Democracy’ in Held, D., and Archibugi, D. (eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy:
An Agenda for a New World Order, Cambridge: Polity Press. 121-162
Archibugi, D., Balduini, S., and Donati, M. (2000) ‘The United Nations as
an Agency of Global Democracy’ in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy:
Key Debates, London: Routledge. 125-142
Archibugi, D. (2004) ‘Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review’,
European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, No. 3, p. 437-473
Archibugi, D. (2010) ‘The Architecture of Cosmopolitan Democracy’ in
Held, D., and Brown, G. (eds) The Cosmopolitanism Reader, Cambridge:
Polity Press. 312-333
Axtmann, R. (2002) ‘What’s Wrong with Cosmopolitan Democracy?’ in
Dower, N., and Williams, J. (eds) Global Citizenship: A Critical Reader,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 101-133
Beethham, D. (1999) Democracy and Human Rights, Cambridge: Polity
24
Press.
Bernhagen, P. (2009) ‘Democracy, Business, and the Economy’ in Haerpfer,
C., et al. (eds) Democratization, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 107-125
Chandler, D. (2003) ‘New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the
Critique of State Sovereignty’, Political Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2, p. 332-349
Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and its Critics, New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Dahl, R. (1999) ‘Can International Organization be Democratic? A Skeptical
View’ in Shapiro, I., and Hacker-Cordon, C. (eds) Democracy’s Edges,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 17-36
Elster, J. (1996) Nuts and Bolts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, R. (1995) ‘The World Order between Inter-State Law and the Law of
Humanity: The Role of Civil Society Institutions’ in Held, D., and
Archibugi, D. (eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World
Order, Cambridge: Polity Press. 163-179
Falk, R. (2000) ‘Global Civil Society and the Democratic Project’ in Holden,
B. (eds) Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge. 162-178
25
Franceschet, A. (2000) Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy?
Liberalism, Kant and International Reform’, European Journal of
International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 277-302
Gorg, C., and Hirsh, J. (1998) ‘Is International Democracy Possible’, Review
of International Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 585-615
Gilbert, M. (2006) ‘Rationality in Collective Action’, Philosophy of the
Social Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 1, p. 3-17
Habermas, J. (1997) Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace with Two Hundred
Year’s Hindsight’ in Bohman, J., and Lutz-Bachman, M. (eds) Perpetual
Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, Cambridge: MIT Press. 235254
Held, D. (1995) ‘Democracy and the New International Order’ in Held, D.,
and Archibugi, D. (eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New
World Order, Cambridge: Polity Press. 96-120
Held, D. (1997) ‘Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: A New
Agenda’ in Bohman, J., and Lutz-Bachman, M. (eds) Perpetual Peace:
Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, Cambridge: MIT Press. 235-254
Held, D. (2000) ‘The Changing Contours of Political Community:
Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization’ in Holden, B. (eds)
26
Global Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge. 17-31
Held, D. (2002) ‘The Transformation of Political Community: Rethinking
Democracy in the Context Globalisation’ in Dower, N., and Williams, J.
(eds) Global Citizenship: A Critical Reader, Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press. 92-100
Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the
Washington Consensus, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D. (2005) Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State
to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D., and McGrew, A. (2007) Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond
the Great Divide, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D. (2010) ‘Reframing Global Governance: Apocalypse Soon or
Reform!’ in Held, D., and Brown, G. (eds) The Cosmopolitanism Reader,
Cambridge: Polity Press. 293-311
Holden, B. (2000) ‘Introduction’ in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy:
Key Debates, London: Routledge. 1-14
Hutchings, K. (1999) International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a
Global Era, London: SAGE Publications.
27
Marx, K., and F, Engels. (1848) The Communist Manifesto, New York: Le
Socialiste.
Miller, D. (2003) Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Roper, B. (2007) ‘Cosmopolitan Social Democracy: A Marxist Appreciation
and Critique’ Proceedings of the 2007 Political Studies Conference held at
the University of Otago, Dunedin: University of Otago.
Saward, M. (2000) ‘A Critique of Held’ in Holden, B. (eds) Global
Democracy: Key Debates, London: Routledge. 32-46
Smith, T. (2003) ‘Globalisation and Capitalist Property Relations: A Critical
Assessment of David Held’s Cosmopolitan Theory’, Historical Materialism,
Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 3-35
Zolo, D. (2000) ‘The Lords of Peace: From the Holy Alliance to the New
International Criminal Tribunals’ in Holden, B. (eds) Global Democracy:
Key Debates, London: Routledge. 73-86
Online
BBC,
‘Peacekeepers
Abusing
28
Children’,
27/05/2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7420798.stm (Accessed, 28/04/2011).
European Council Composition, ‘Composition of the European Parliament’,
19/10/2007.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/ds00869.en07.pdf
(Accessed, 27/04/2011).
29