Few developments in modern history have mattered more to billions of people than democracy’s global rise, from almost nowhere in the 1800s to a majority of the world’s population today. But that progress could easily have been halted, in the tumultuous 20th century and beyond, had it not been for the strength and generosity of a liberal superpower that promoted its values aggressively and repeatedly rescued nascent democracies from autocratic backsliding.
Global democracy proposals take many different forms, but they all share one common feature: They seek to reduce the current global democratic deficit by extending the institutions of democracy beyond the state. The most well-known is the cosmopolitan model, championed by scholars like David Held and Daniele Archibugi. It is normatively grounded in the belief that citizens require a global political environment that supports their autonomy by providing them with democratic mechanisms for exercising control over their lives.
More broadly, intrinsically motivated arguments about the value of democracy abound in literature. These largely focus on the cosmopolitan ideals of equality, autonomy and non-domination (see, for example, Pogge 1992). They provide a moral foundation – related to but sometimes distinct from – the instrumental concerns of the proponents of global democracy.
More pragmatically, some scholars see global democracy as necessary for epistemic, problem-solving and justice-based reasons. For instance, John Dryzek (2000) claims that democracy enables a diversity of views to shape policy and increases the chances that policies will be ‘correct’.
About the Author
