Introduction
As put forth by Held (2009) 37:
535–547, there is an urgent need for the reorganization of global governance so
as to ascertain democracy and self governance by individual states. Näsström (2003:808) asserts that for democracy
to exist there needs to be a group of autonomous individuals with distinct and
identifiable political structures. Fioramonti (n.d, page 131- 141) describes the global civil
society as the entirety of movements, structures and institutes that are
affiliated to international establishments and concern themselves with global
issues.Bull et al
(2004: pp 481–482) on their part, claim that the greatest milestone in global
governance and democracy over the years has to a large extent been instigated
by the contributions of non-state actors also commonly referred to as the
private sector. Bartelson (2008) 159-174
claims that the globalization of an autonomous society is possible if the
appropriate framework is set in place. All these assertions point out that the
contributions of non-state actors to the concept of global governance have come
with a great force. Such realization has seen the creation of formerly unknown
forms of international relationships involving autonomous states.
It is to be noted that the set
joint ventures and international enterprises, with particular focus on NGOs,
were in earlier times non-existent especially in states where there subsisted
no congenial associations betweenthe multilateral establishments and the
non-state segment.Bull et al (2004: 485–487) explain that there are indeed a
myriad of reasons that necessitate the involvement of the non- state sector in issues
of multilateral bodies. Initially, the different types of financial
institutions such as banks were the most involved forms of private sectors in
the affairs of multilateral organizations but recent years have seen the
increased participation of the United Nations organizations as purported by
Utting et al (2009) Supplement 1: 39–56. On his part, Fioramonti (n.d, pp 141), asserts that for a long time
self-governing answerability has been seen as missing from the UN due to its alleged
welcoming of perceived influences from multinational co operations. In light of
this, non- state entities that advocate for autonomous international systems
have thus stepped in to right the perceived wrong.
Research question
This paper
aims at the demystification of the normative issue pertaining to what has led
to increased involvement of non-state institutes and whether their increased
participation influences global governance and democracy in a good and
advantageous way or not.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework in the tackling of the above
question will involve the study of the topic and others related to it from
reliable sources and the quotation of dependable experts on the same. With a great
emphasis being placed on the involvement of the UN as a non state body, the
types of non- state participation, its merits and demerits and effects on
global governance will be exhausted before a conclusion is drawn at the end of
the essay.
Key Words: Non-state Entities, NGOs, Multilateral Institutions,
Self Governance, State and Global Civil Society
Types of Non-State
Participation
According to Bull et al (2004: 485),
it is evident that in the recent times,
a massive expansion of non- state organizations has been witnessed which has
had a propensity for playing a collaborative role with the state institutions
made possible through the formation of partnerships and co-operations aimed at
both fiscal and political progression. Bull et al (2004:498), continue to
further state that there are indeed five ways that can be used to differentiate
the different forms of collaborations between the state and non- state
institutions in any individual state.
One such category, according to
Bull et al (2004: 485), is the policy dialogue. This takes place when the
private and non-state leaders are allowed and welcomed to actively take part in
the administration of the state or multilateral organizations and also in the legislative
discussions that concern the same. Similarly, this is very common in many
contemporary states especially relating to the myriad of the United Nations
organizations that exist in the international scene (Riemann, 2006:45). Kamat
(2004) 11(1): 155–176 therefore finds it necessary for the concept of NGOs and
their role to be demystified especially in the event that privatization of
public interest is to take place. With regard to this, it is evident that if,
for example, a certain government wants to form commissions to oversee the
control of a certain epidemic that has broken out within its boundaries, it is
only normal that there will be representatives from the World health
Organization who have their bases on its soil.
Second is the alliance formed between
the state and non-state institutes in
making the public knowledgeable about certain issues that are of interest to
the government in question; this is what Bull et al (2004:483) refer to as advocacy
partnerships.This is succinctly evidenced in the cases of NGOs. For example,the
association between the UNDP and CISCO institute, which led to the formation of
the NetAid Website thirteen years ago, aimed at the reduction and eventual
eradication of paucity.
A third form of the collaboration
between state and non-state organizations are seen in the establishments of
information and learning partnerships; this is when stakeholders from the
private sector congregate with those from governmental bodies with the aim of joining
hands in the conduction of studies, enquiries and investigations about
noteworthy issues in the society and then making the public aware of the
research outcomes.
The two last ways in which the
relationships between state and non-state institutes are visualized, according
to Bull et al (2004: 481) are the role played by the non- state sector in the
mobilization of private funds and the operations thereafter. The two sides may
come together with the intent of marshalling resources to be used in the
advancement or implementation of governmental initiatives. Operation involves
non-state sector playing an active role in the drawing up of plans, their
execution and eventual assessment of the feasibility of the drawn projects.
Bull et al (2004: 483) give as an example the relations between UNHCR,
Microsoft and their allies in an effort to advance the collection and storage
of data related to the predicament of refugees.
Bexell et al (2010) 16(1): 81–101
is of the view that in the pursuit of global governance and democracy the
transnational agents involved may serve to enhance the process or bring it
down. It is therefore important to look at some views of different proponents
and opponents of the increased participation of non-state entities in multilateral
organizations.
In Support of the Participation
of Non- state Actors
The most actively involved private
organizations as stated earlier on by Bull et al (2004:485) are the multilateral
financial firms and the United Nations organizations; and there are several
reasons for this. In the recent years the UN has increased its participations
in the private sector and Bulls et al (2004) claim that this has been due to
the failure of affiliated states to provide the necessary monetary support for
the UN. Consequently, it has plunged into chronic fiscal problems that can only
be solved through the involvement of the private sector.
Another reason that has lead to
increased participation by the non- state institutes in the UN is the fact that
a paradigm shift of philosophy has occurred in the UN. Previously, as Bull et
al (2004: 484) asserts that the existence of neo-Marxist philosophies in the UN
body had distanced the non- state institutes but this is no longer the case. One
good example is the fact that the UN has in recent days formed The Global
Compact aimed at the formulation of principles and guidelines that will
directthe social accountability procedures of corporate in the international
arena. Another reason for the inclination of non-state institutes towards the
multilateral ones is the shift of leadership in the UN.When, in 1997 Kofi Anan
was appointed, his commerce degree and prior know how of the operations non-
state establishments came in handy in encouraging formation of partnerships
with the UN.
Reimann (2006:67) claims that the
involvement of non-state entities- particularly the NGOS- have played great
roles in the establishment of global organizations that have provided
assistance in the event of strife and humanitarian states. Gould (2009) 40 (1):
24–41 also puts in that the NGOs are very instrumental in ensuring that the
human rights of all individuals on the face of the globe are upheld. They have
also aided independent states in the supplying of crucial data for the agendas
involving the role of the media and lobbying of the masses support for viable
governmental initiatives. Another very important role according to him is that
the UN has been very significant in the staffing of competent individuals to
aid in the formation and implementation of drawn work plans. Apart from
providing hire for many, the masses have also benefited from the numerous
initiatives.
The supporters of the private
sector domination, as put forth by Bull et al (2004:481–482),also claim that
the collaboration of the state and non-state institutions is very reasonable
and productive due to the fact that it gives an alternative way for individual
states to promote the progression of the economic and political ventures within
their boundaries especially in cases where the more developed nations are
hesitant to provide them with the fiscal aid or assistance that they need to do
so.
Against the
participation of non-state actors
According to Uhlin (2011:817),
there is in existencea loophole in the promotion or display of democracy in the
global governance issues by non- state entities due to lack their lack of
accountability and transparency.Bull et al (2004:482) point out that the
opponents of the increased involvement of non- state establishments have for
long disputed that these increased activities of the private sector are to be
blamed for the economic disruption that has occurred to the multilateral
organizations.
Fioramonti (n.d:141) on his side argues that there may exist-
among the members of non-state entities different mind-set
on what is meant by democracy and global governance. Apart from this
difficulty, it also
exposes the fears that there
will arise a predicament when it comes to the determination of what principles
and interests are worthy of being supported and advanced by the non-state
entities and which ones are not.
The non-state involvement might
lead to the reduction of the sovereignty of individual states and their
legislative authority especially when the non- state entities are allowed to
overly involve themselves in the affairs of administration. Näsström (n.d:834)
argues that democracy is a result of stable political authority and the
participation of non- state organizations will challenge this. Murphy (2000) 76(4):
789–803 claims that the reason why there are problems in the implementation of
global governance and democracy is that the concept is not accurately
understood by many who are engaged in the implementation process.
Effects of state and
non-state associations on global governance
Bull et al (2004:498) state that
the involvement of the non-state bodies will discourage the rigidity in the
multilateral entities and increase fluidity which will be feasible for enhanced
democracy in global governance. Nevertheless, some demerits such as the misrepresentation,
break up or alteration of the set UN guidelines which might interfere with its
activities.
Fioramonti (n.d138) claims that the first problem with this
involvement is the predicaments that non-state entities face in proving their
answerability and allegiance to democracy. As Scholte (2007:27) asserts, this issue is more profound when it comes to
financial accountability and the transparency of the internal functions of the
entities. Fioramonti (n.d:137) further asserts that there is little
participation of the masses at the grass root levels when it comes to
implementation of non- state initiatives. As a result, these organisations are
aristocratic and full of domestic competition. In such cases, as put forth by Grant
(2005) 99: 29–43, the
occurrence and frequency of embezzlement
of public funds and misuse of authority is bound to thrive.
Conclusion
Cox (1992) is very exact in her
assertion that there exist interrelations between globalization, multilateralism
and democracy. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that thegenuine self-autonomy
in NGOs can only be achieved when there is present a system in which the people
are allowed to participate in governance. The differentiation of self governance and
liberalization is therefore tantamount. This argument has the implication that in recent times, many NGOs have agreed to the signing
of the Accountability Charter that aims to solve the many issues that critics have
used as combat points.In
essence, the associations between non- state and multilateral entities are
symbiotic and worthwhile if each side accomplishes its obligations
satisfactorily.
Bibiliography
Bartelson, J., 2008. “Globalizing the Democratic Community”, Ethics & Global Politics
1(4): 159-174. http://www.transdemos.se/publications/bartelson.pdf
Bexell,
M. – T. & Jonas – U. A., 2010. “Democracy in Global Governance:
The Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors”, Global Governance 16(1): 81–101. (20 pp)
Bull, B. – B. M. & – McNeill, D., 2004. “Private Sector Influence in the
Multilateral System: A Changing Structure of World Governance?” Global Governance
10(4): 481–498. (17 pp)
Cox, R. W., 1992“Globalization,
Multilateralism and Democracy”, Academic Council on the United
Nations, the ACUNS 1992 John W. Holmes
Memorial Lecture Will be distributed in class (12 pp)
Fioramonti, L.: The internal contradictions of global civil
society– What impact on global democracy? Development Dialogue November 2007 –
global civil society pp 131- 141
Gould, C., 2009. “Structuring
global Democracy: Political Communities, Universal Human Rights, and
Transnational Representation”, Metaphilosophy 40 (1): 24–41.
Grant, R. W. –K. & Robert, O., 2005. “Accountability and abuses of power in world
politics”, American Political Science Review 99: 29–43
Held, D. 2009“Restructuring
Global Governance: Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order”, Millennium
- Journal of International Studies 37: 535–547.
Kamat, S., 2004 “The
privatization of public interest: theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era”,
Review of International Political Economy 11(1): 155–176.
Murphy, C. N., 2000.
“Global Governance: Poorly Done and Poorly Understood”, International Affairs
76(4): 789–803.
Näsström, S, 2003. “What
Globalization Overshadows”, Political Theory 31(6): 808–834.
Reimann, K. D., 2006. “A View from the Top: International Politics, Norms and the Worldwide
Growth of NGOs”, International Studies Quarterly 50: 45–67.
Scholte, J. A., 2007 “Global civil Society – Opportunity or Obstacle for Democracy?”Development
Dialogue 49: 15–27
Uhlin, A., 2011.
“National democratization theory and global governance: civil society and the liberalization
of the Asian Development Bank” Democratization
18(3): 817–841.
Utting, P. & Ann, 2009 “United Nations-Business Partnerships: Good Intentions and
Contradictory Agendas”, Journal of Business Ethics 9
No comments:
Post a Comment