IX-c. Global Governance
Historically, national governments grew slowly, increasing the range of their powers, as it was discovered that there were some issues that simply could not be handled adequately by village and city administrations. For a long time the Jeffersonian imperative was widely accepted: that government is best that governs least. The foremost function that needed to be addressed was security from attack, but in time the functions of national governments came to include many other matters, including maintaining systems of currency and public finance, transportation, communication, and many other matters.
Governance at the global level is now at an early stage of evolution. However, it is increasingly recognized that there are some issues—such as war, environment, population, poverty, immigration, epidemic diseases—that are simply too large to be handled by nation states. Some global level bodies have been established to deal with these issues, but they have very limited powers. There are certainly grave risks associated with increasing their powers, but there are also grave risks to maintaining the sort of global anarchy that now prevails. We need to look seriously at how those risks might balance out as global governance is strengthened. One important advantage we have in doing the work of designing desirable forms of global governance is that we can learn from the mistakes made in forming the institutions of national governance.
We can also draw on the positive experience in national governance to get a clear sense of direction in designing global governance. We should explore the question of what democratic global governance might imply. It would be difficult to argue that the present world order based on the hegemony of one super-power together with an unrepresentative UN Security Council is very democratic. Democratic governance should be identified not simply in terms of some sort of voting mechanism (which in many cases is limited to addressing relatively minor questions), but to a genuine principle of equality, to broad participation in public decision-making, and to challengeable and changeable leadership that is somehow representative. What would such ideas mean when transposed to the global level?
In the new global governance that will emerge, we are likely to see the creation of a global government of some form. It will have substantial powers in some respects, but strongly constrained powers in other respects. Without substantial constraints, global governance will be fiercely resisted by those who fear its potentially tyrannical powers.
Global government could take a form comparable to that of most national governments, with particular functions assigned to particular ministries. We can already see nascent forms of these world ministries in the intergovernmental agencies: WHO, FAO, ILO, UNICEF, World Bank, etc. How would their operations be different in a democratic global government?
With a global government of some form, it would be possible for the international community to take responsibilities and to be genuinely accountable in ways that are not presently possible. For example, it would be possible for the international community (as distinguished from the separate nation states) to take responsibility for providing developing assistance or humanitarian assistance, or for the realization of human rights. The international community would then have real powers, and would not have to go begging in each situation to the major donor nations or the dominant financial and military powers. We see movement in this direction with the decision to create an International Criminal Court. The question is whether this—and other global agencies—will really have "teeth". Those who have reason to fear these powers certainly will resist their establishment.
Earlier, in Subsection VIII-c, we pointed out that even the most democratic nations have substantial inequalities among their constituents. This pattern is reproduced in the international system. In the world community of nominally sovereign states, the idealized principle is that nations, no matter how large or small, strong or weak, are equal, just as within democracies individual persons, in principle, have equal votes and are equal before the law. In reality the power disparities among nations are even greater than the disparities among individual persons within nations. The world is full of gross inequalities, even in supposedly democratic systems.
What would be the implications of the human right to food and nutrition in a world of democratic global governance? Certainly we would expect that more of the world community's attention and resources would be devoted to addressing the concerns of weaker nations and weaker persons. The possible roles of the world commnity in connection with issues such as international humanitarian assistance and refugees are suggested in the following section.
There are signs of a steadily advancing process of democratization within nations, and also among nations. We are shuffling, haltingly and with reverses, toward that utopia we call good governance. In statements of agreed principles in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two covenants, the other human rights treaties, and the Declaration on the Right to Development, human rights work helps us to find the way. The work is largely about clarifying the direction we should take, a contribution that may be more important than any specific enforcement measures. Hopefully, we are moving toward a world in which everyone is treated equally, in which governments really care about their people’s well-being, and in which governments are really capable of helping to look after all of us. Hopefully we are also moving toward a strengthening of the human spirit, through which individuals are more willing and able to look after one another, rather than being torn apart by a thousand forms of tribalism.
With good governance, there is general accountability of the government to all the people, through the media and other more formal arrangements. With good governance, broad government accountability arises out of the fact that government officials who do not perform satisfactorily can be removed by the people. If this works well, there may be no need for special mechanisms of accountability dedicated specifically to assuring the realization of the human right to food and nutrition or any other specific human right.Until broad and general accountability of governments to all their people is perfected, it is important to establish distinct institutional arrangements, such as effective national human rights commissions and effective international treaty bodies, to assure that steady progress is made toward the goal of the realization of all human rights by all people.
The human right to food and nutrition is just one of many possible handles on the interlocking complex of concerns about rights, democracy, governance, and development. It is presented here not as something apart, but as one entryway into this larger agenda. Human rights work helps to illuminate the path, throwing light onto the darker sides of individual and governmental behavior, and clarifying what is right and what is wrong. It contributes to empowering the weak, making the world a bit more fair. Like medicine, its quest is to make itself unnecessary. Human rights work is carried out alongside many other instruments deployed in the pursuit of good governance, within nations and internationally. It is unashamedly utopian. In showing us the right direction, human rights work is also eminently practical.
Continue to X-a. TINP in Tamil Nadu
Section IX-c last updated on May 24, 1999