Globalization and Popular Sovereignty

Democracy’s Transnational Dilemma

Adam Lupel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781135969301
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This volume analyzes the impact of globalization on the concept of popular sovereignty and rethinks it for the transnational domain. It explores how popular sovereignty has historically determined the form of democratic citizenship and how democratic citizenship and legitimacy can be conceived in the transnational sphere in the absence of a global sovereign order. By inquiring into the new global context of popular sovereignty, the book seeks to better understand the emerging structures of global governance and their potential for democratic legitimacy. Lupel argues:

• That the challenges of globalization necessitate a rethinking of the concept of popular sovereignty beyond the domain of the nation-state
• That such a rethinking reveals a tension between the particularism of democratic legitimacy and the universalism of cosmopolitan politics
• Critical attention to the constitutive processes of global governance must become an integral part of democratic theory in the context of globalization; and a transnational model of popular sovereignty provides the best resources for this purpose.

This book will be of interest to students and scholars of globalization, democratic theory and international relations theory.

1
Introduction

Popular sovereignty and globalization

“It was the dilemma of an age when government could – some would say: must – be ‘of the people’ and ‘for the people,’ but could not in any operational sense be ‘by the people.’”

Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A history of the World, 1914–1991

(Vintage, 1996).

And the idea that one part of a democratic society is capable of a reflexive intervention into society as a whole has, until now, been realized only in the context of nation-states. Today developments summarized under the term “globalization” have put this entire constellation into question.

Jürgen Habermas, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays (Polity/MIT Press, 2000)

We live in an age of extraordinary transformation, opportunity, and risk. On the one hand, in the wake of decolonization and democratization’s “third wave” we now live at a time when it is widely accepted that the people ought to have political power. The question is not whether the people are the source of political legitimacy but rather what form of government can best express their authority. From the liberal democracies of Europe and North America, to the populist movements of South America, and the nominally communist states of East Asia, the people are named as the source of legitimate political power. Even the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani took to speaking the language of popular sovereignty in arguing for greater Shi’ite influence over the interim constitution in Iraq.¹

However, on the other hand, we are also living at a time when “globalization” calls into question the democratization of power. To many, democracy today seems impractical and inefficient. According to a UNDP report on democracy in Latin America, democratization and market liberalization have occasioned only a negligible rise in per capita income. As a result, in 2004 only 43 percent of Latin Americans considered themselves “fully supportive of democracy.” And over 54 percent indicated that they would “support an ‘authoritarian’ regime over a ‘democratic’ government” if it could provide the answer to their economic and social woes.² Yet in the context of globalization few governments if any seem to have such an answer.

As the financial crisis of 2008 grew into the global economic recession of 2009, governments all over the world turned toward a more robust fiscal policy in response, even as the effects of each new banking crisis rippled across international markets, beyond their grasp, with no end in sight. Governing the integration of the world’s economies and responding to the globalized threats of terrorism, financial collapse, or environmental devastation extend beyond the reach of even the most powerful states, challenging the capacity of national institutions – long associated with democratic governance – to respond to the exigencies of the times.

And at the same time, the institutions that may be in a position to respond to such demands are all but closed to the input of the vast majority of the world’s population. The democratic deficit of regional organizations such as the European Union or international institutions like the World Bank or the World Trade Organization has been widely noted.³ To the extent that national governments have a diminished capacity to determine their own fate, and that policy decisions of vital concern are being made by regional, international, or transnational bodies beyond the reach of democratic representation, “[p]olitical power is being reconfigured.”⁴

While the expansion and acceleration of cultural, political, and economic activities cutting across national and regional borders is not inherently incompatible with democratic practice, such processes do present a significant challenge to the nation-state as democracy’s dominant institutional form. As the nation-state experiences a diminished capacity for independent action and the stable reproduction of collective identities, its status as the preeminent site of democratic government comes into question. Of course, the state itself remains resilient: states continue to be the principal actors in international affairs; indeed, there is no sign of their imminent demise.

On the contrary, early twenty-first century developments suggest a strengthening of state-centered capitalism through sovereign wealth funds and stateowned business enterprises and energy companies, such as the China Investment Corporation or Gazprom, the Russian energy giant.⁵ And the partial nationalization of banks in the US, UK, and continental Europe in the wake of the 2008 credit crisis suggests that liberal democracies are also heading in the direction of increased state intervention in the economy. However much of the early debate about globalization centered on its effects on state sovereignty, while, this book is concerned with its effect on popular sovereignty. How does globalization challenge the democratic rule of the people?

Globalization puts pressure on the traditional forms of democratic practice. In order for the processes of globalization to continue without resulting in a corresponding loss of the collective capacity to make legitimately binding decisions many of the central categories of democratic theory need to be reexamined. This book contributes to this project by rethinking the concept of popular sovereignty: What is the impact of globalization on the concept of popular sovereignty as a central category of democratic theory? How has popular sovereignty historically determined the form of democratic citizenship? And how can one conceive of democratic citizenship and legitimation in the transnational sphere in the absence of a global sovereign order? By inquiring into the new global context of popular sovereignty, I seek to better understand the emerging structures of global governance and their potential for democratic legitimation.

I argue (1) the challenges of globalization necessitate a rethinking of the concept of popular sovereignty beyond the domain of the nation-state; (2) that such a rethinking reveals a tension between the particularism of democratic legitimacy and the universalism of cosmopolitan politics – a tension I call the problem of cosmopolitan founding; therefore (3) critical attention to the constitutive processes of global governance must become an integral part of cosmopolitan theorizing and, I argue, the principle of transnational popular sovereignty provides the best resources for this purpose.

Definition of terms: nation-state, globalization, popular sovereignty

Since the 1990’s a large literature surrounding the topic of “globalization” has called into question the capacity of the nation-state to fulfill its role as the primary container of democratic practice. The concept of popular sovereignty developed within the context of the consolidation of the modern state, and many of the current challenges to popular sovereignty, with respect to globalization, stem from the corresponding transformations in the nation-state form. Much of the debate concerning globalization has centered on the question of state sovereignty. State sovereignty refers to the status of a territorial administrative system that is not subject to any higher authority either from within its borders or from abroad. Popular sovereignty, more specifically, refers to a people’s capacity for self-determination by constituting such an administrative system, or by assisting to steer or transform it once established.

Current processes of globalization undermine the democratic authority of nation-states, and inhibit their capacity to provide services, without providing for an alternative coherent administrative structure with avenues for popular participation or influence. In the absence of effective institutional structures for the purposes of collective self-determination in the transnational sphere, how can the people be understood to provide their consent to processes that originate beyond the scope of the nation-state? How could transnational power be thought of as accountable to the people?

The debate over state sovereignty in the late 1990s was often depicted to be between those who claimed the demise of the sovereign state was near and those who claimed that the sovereign state was as strong as ever.⁶ The origins of contemporary notions of state sovereignty are generally traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. As understood since, state sovereignty is a reciprocal agreement among national governments giving independent states the right to pursue policy within their own territory free from external interference.⁷ While the history of international relations suggests that the West-phalian ideal has never been fully realized, the principle of state sovereignty remains the cornerstone of international relations today.⁸ Challenges to state sovereignty may be grouped under at least two headings: (1) challenges to state authority and (2) challenges to state capacity.

According to the Westphalian model, states are sovereign in that they recognize no superior authority beyond their own borders. However, in the context of globalization, this formulation has become increasingly harder to maintain. Beyond the borders of the nation-state, transnational institutional authorities have emerged increasingly salient. External authorities and powers have a growing influence over the internal affairs of states, to the extent that traditional understandings of state sovereignty are increasingly called into question by the growth of international systems of economic decision-making, law and security.⁹ The proliferation of international decision-making bodies tends to extend the sphere of authority beyond the nation-state. The consolidation of the WTO, for example, signifies the appearance of an international institution that claims the authority to overrule national governments.

Whereas once international law was understood to lie between states, over the course of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, it has aspired to rise above them. In recent years, international human rights law has represented a code to which individuals might appeal over and above the laws of their own country. Such appeals are often tragically ineffective; but when political forces favorably align, international human rights law may provide a powerful resource for the protection of individuals or minority groups from authoritarian or chauvinistic states.

In addition to challenging the nation-state’s status as the final authority within its territorial boundaries, processes of globalization have put pressure on the state’s capacity to provide effective government. This is particularly true regarding the relationship between international finance capital and domestic social welfare programs. As new information technology and neo-liberal trade policy make far-flung markets more interconnected, national economies become increasingly interdependent. In the 1990s the acceleration of such connections, augmented by the decline of capital controls, and promoted by international institutions, contributed to an international atmosphere that put strong fiscal pressure on nation-states to practice extreme monetary austerity, avoiding capital flight, but diminishing state resources for the effective administration of services.¹⁰ Furthermore, the proliferation and increased effectiveness of international terrorism and crime has made it increasingly difficult for states to provide their most basic service – the maintenance of order and security – without international cooperation. Such cooperation is often made contingent upon participation in international treaties that may restrict future state action.

In contemporary parlance, “globalization” often refers simply to the expansion of free trade and the growing integration of national economies the world over.¹¹ However, this represents a limited understanding of a multilayered phenomenon that encompasses political, cultural, military, and environmental factors as well as the specifically macroeconomic. The spread of AIDS and the threat of Avian Flu, international terrorism and drug trafficking, rising food prices, and the financial ripple effects of the subprime mortgage crisis, as well as global warming and the depletion of the world’s rain forests are all elements in the globalization equation.

The term “globalization” summarizes a variety of processes that together increase the scale, speed, and effectiveness of social interactions across political, economic, cultural, and geographic borders.¹² The result is that activities and events in one region of the globe may have transcontinental effects, potentially reaching the far corners of the earth. This is a process with a long history that has accelerated in the last twenty years due in part to the end of the Cold War and the revolution in information technologies, including the rise of satellite communications and the world wide web. Yet the concept of globalization should not be understood as inherently implying the inevitable integration of the planet into a single world society. And globalization should not be understood as a simple zero-sum game for state sovereignty.¹³ Often the challenge to the concept of state sovereignty comes not from restricting state power or overruling state authority, but by eliding the very distinction between the foreign and the domestic.

Globalization is not a force attacking the state from abroad, but rather a multilayered process that entails state participation. For example, domestic governments take part in the international harmonization of securities laws, and national central banks cooperate in the regulation of international financial markets. Thus government agencies can be simultaneously of the domestic order and part of the emerging system of global governance.¹⁴ Globalization is an uneven process, benefiting some more than others and creating divisions as sure as it makes connections. Globalization is a fundamentally contested concept; its ultimate character and direction is a matter of dispute.

Anthony Giddens described the essential element of globalization as the intensification of time–space distanciation: the distance between linked localities is increasingly stretched, so that events and decisions in far-off places may have profound effects across the globe, and the actions of previously isolated locales may carry reverberations far beyond their own known horizons.¹⁵ In this sense, globalization is defined by the stretching, intensifying, and accelerating of social, political, and economic connections across borders, regions, and between continents, creating networks of interaction that crisscross the planet.¹⁶ And contrary to the analysis of some at the time, this process only continued apace in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001.¹⁷ The phenomenon of 9/11 and its aftermath indeed did not announce the end of globalization but rather highlighted its reality as people around the globe watched the events unfold in real time, sharin...

Table of contents

• Rethinking Globalizations
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Trajectories of popular sovereignty
• 3 The liberal model of popular sovereignty
• 4 The republican model of popular sovereignty
• 5 The deliberative model of popular sovereignty
• 6 Responses to globalization I
• 7 Responses to globalization II
• 8 Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index