Democratic legitimacy of transnational governments

"Transnationalism by no means implies the disappearance of the Nation State. It merely means that besides and beyond a Nation state, a horizontal system of governance may exist beyond the boundaries of that State, provided the concept of national autonomy and sovereignty are not eroded and not taken for granted."
____________

Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

(October 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Transnational government results when there is a shift of the traditional centrifugal State governance system which has a vertical structure, to a horizontal and dialogue driven form of governance by the triumvirate of State, civil society and public and private enterprise.

This form of governance has so far not been addressed by political scientists in a systematic way so as to bring to bear the essentials of such a system of governance. This is particularly so in the issue of democratic legitimacy of transnational government, which lies very much in the balance depending on acceptable definitions of democracy, transnational governance and the transformation of governance from its central role to a more extended role which transcends national boundaries.

As an initial step one must distinguish between government and governance, which are often used alternatively, obfuscating the distinction between the two. Government is the process that runs a sovereign State. One definition of democratic government would be government of the people, by the people and for the people, as defined by United States President Abraham Lincoln.

Taking this concept beyond the boundaries of a nation State would mean the extension of the process of democratization to what Alexander Someil, an acknowledged political scientist calls “democratic minimalism”, which is the decomposition of a coherent whole (called democracy) into several of its component elements.

The ambivalence of transnational governance is reflected in the fact that, while on the one hand an arbitrarily theoretical concept that applies using a series of fragmented pieces of democracy could obfuscate the true characteristics of democratic minimalism, on the other hand the application of the legitimate and valid minimalist elements to a transnational governance model could improve the democratic process.

A sovereign State has four characteristics: It has a defined geographic area; an identified people; the ability to make its own decisions with regard to its rule; and the ability to exclude other States’ influence in the running of its government and its external relations policy. Governance on the other hand is what a “government” does and relates to decisions that define expectations.

It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of management or leadership processes. In other words, “governance” is the application of rules, processes and conduct to ensure that powers are exercised properly. The basic principles of governance are openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence.

Transnational government would therefore have to apply these principle both regularly and collectively in order to achieve democratic legitimacy. Someil implies that such legitimacy would require to be achieved through a common public sphere in which “vigilant citizens monitor and discuss public policy and in which they are connected through the awareness that there is a mutual sense of community and belonging”.

There are three ways in which a political process achieves such legitimacy on a transnational basis: firstly when the practice of politics in a particular jurisdiction is authorized by, and under the control of the people or a major representative body; secondly, where such a political process is appropriately responsive to the needs and interests of the people; and finally when the decisions made do not conflict with the interests of the people and their equality.

For there to be an accepted system of transnational government beyond a State government, there should be recognition that such a demarcation of a functionally differentiated membership is legitimized to participate in governance across borders. In other words, there should be functionally differentiated community which personifies and effectively demonstrates the dimension of government by the people. Such a membership must show ability for problem solving for their people, participatory democracy and a deliberative capacity.

The requirements for adherence to these principles would strongly militate against a race or portion thereof unilaterally declaring a transnational government without engaging in the proper democratic process of minimalism within collective participation of the executive.

A classic example at a genuine attempt at transnational governance is the introduction by the European Commission of the White Paper on European Governance. Although it has been criticized as a “subtle diatribe against the prevalence of inter-governmentalism” and a “lofty attempt at regional governance” which is a narrow conception of democracy, in theory the underlying principle of the paper is based on the fact that European citizens have lost understanding of a complex political system that has politically coalesced their nations into a union of States and that they feel alienated from the work of the European Union.

The paper is therefore calculated to bridge the widening gap between the policy making behemoth and the various nations it controls by increasing the ability of the people of Europe to take part in public debate through a bottom up approach with regard to the communication of public policy.

The ultimate goal of this policy is to create a transnational space in which citizens of different countries can discuss their own perceptions of issues confronting their Union. The aim of this policy is laudable as it serves a dual purpose of ensuring that policymakers are aware of the pulse of the people, and that the people have a sense of participating in a democratic process.

Above all, the parliaments concerned, i.e. the European Parliament and respective national parliaments could consolidate their places in a democratic process and facilitate dialogue between the bureaucracy of the European Commission and civil society.

The only element of caution that usually accompanies the notion of transnational governance is prevalent in the White Paper, since, although in theory the objectives sound laudable, in reality such a coalescence between the European Commission and the opening of communication channels with interdependencies could lead to what one commentator calls a “benevolent dictatorship” which would further alienate the European Commission from parliamentary democracy.

Transnationalism by no means implies the disappearance of the Nation State. It merely means that besides and beyond a Nation state, a horizontal system of governance may exist beyond the boundaries of that State, provided the concept of national autonomy and sovereignty are not eroded and not taken for granted.

It acts as a deviation from the “hard laws” of a Nation State to “soft rules and guidelines” achieved through international discourse provided by the elements of transnationalism. Transnationalism typifies “epistemic” societies, i.e, societies of expertise and practice mostly consisting of technocrats and other professionals who bring with them the ability to link Nation States with groups which could introduce governance across boundaries.

Transnational governance therefore consists of dialogue-oriented forms of coordination between state, civil-society and economic actors. Deliberative governance is essentially horizontal and based on a dialogue-oriented political style between state and non-state actors who establish and apply a collective approach with a view to aiming for an effective problem solving process.

Such participatory procedures concede the ability of non-State actors to exert political influence not only by voting in certain circumstances, but also by giving the participating actors the opportunity to convince the Nation State of their issues with argumentative rationality.

Therefore, while on the one hand deliberative governance anchors itself on a structural character of procedures that coerces the participants to bring forth publicly acceptable reasons to foster their concerns, goals and aspirations, on the other hand the thrust of such a process would largely depend on the individual capability, willingness and reliance upon the effective use of free public reason

Dr. Hans K”chler, in an article entitled “Reinventing Transnational Government” recognizes that -

“transnational economic and information networks are spanning the globe in an ever more complex form and directly affect the decision-making processes at the national level. These processes expose every citizen to influence from beyond the realm of the traditional nation-state, whether in regard to employment opportunities, environmental quality, domestic and regional security, etc.

The political entity (in most cases: the traditional nation-state) to which each citizen belongs is itself transformed by these complex interdependencies and increasingly reaches the limits of its capacity when it comes to the protection of the interests of the citizens within the domestic realm. These developments have led to the gradual emergence of a global civil society which articulates a common awareness of the problems facing the human race and brings about a new transnational reality that goes well beyond intergovernmental relations in the classical sense”.

Transnational governance is essentially a proactive political process that would particularly assist international organizations in their dialogue with member States and dialogues between States themselves.

It is also abundantly clear that transnational governance is in essence a democratic and discursive process which introduces an added dimension to an already democratic process and is calculated to transcend boundaries and bring groups of States and nations together. This by no means implies that transnational governance could be a tool for prolonging a racial struggle that is calculated to oust a legitimate government or carve out a portion of land for a particular race.

-Sri Lanka Guardian