The Democratic Merits of Global Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Thinking Inside or Outside the Box?
4 April 2015
Philippe Beck (MSc Global Governance and Ethics) on the GGI keynote lecture with Professor Ioannis Papadopoulos.
Global policy areas subject to transnational forms of regulation have witnessed a massive expansion over recent decades. In particular, multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) made up of public and private governance actors have proliferated, so far largely unmoored from the requirements of formal democratic checks and balances.
Among prominent examples we can point to the United Nations Global Compact and the Forest Stewardship Council. Much attention has focused on the performance of these hybrid arrangements in terms of catalysing progress on global regulatory goals. Rather less attention has been paid to the crucial issue of their 'democratic anchorage'.
Advocates of MSIs often speak in Habermasian terms; with inclusion of non-traditional governance actors, coupled with transparent and consensual decision-making providing the coordinates for enhanced legitimacy of governance structures. However, there is little doubt that MSIs - and other private rule-making platforms for that matter - routinely escape the conventional bounds of legitimate governance associated with the democratic social contract. Political theorists have attempted to engage these new actor configurations through the lens of classical democratic frameworks. However, as Professor Papadopoulos emphasised, the sui generis and transnational nature of MSIs requires theoretical innovation which borrows from, but also transcends, the 'nation state imaginary'.
To advance debate on this emergent research agenda, Professor Papadopoulos set out three key democratic mechanisms which can guide our inquiry: ex ante authorization, ex ante representation, and ex post accountability. These three components underpin modern conceptions of democracy but do not necessarily covariate nor involve the same actors. As such, Professor Papadopoulos addressed each in turn in order to deduce some baseline principles which can serve as guiding expectations as scholars and policy-makers advance in their exploration of new modalities of global regulatory governance.
Authorization can be defined as a 'license to govern'. In a relationship reminiscent of the 'principal-agent' model common to accountability theory, a mandate entitles and obliges the agent to 'fulfil a promise', drawing from Jane Mansbridge's concept of 'promissory representation'. However, in reality, given mandates are often unclear or incomplete, ensuring the authoritative relationships among actors within MSIs, or between MSIs and their designated principal, is often extremely challenging. Most observers may agree then that 'all of those affected' should by right be recognised as the legitimate authorising party, reflecting a 'congruence principle'. However, in practice, what does this actually mean for engineering authorisation?
Representation exposes the limits of the methodological nationalism which informs much of this debate. The representation deficit in global governance can be boiled down (crudely) to the observation that representative democracy requires decisions to be founded on the principals of plural ownership, identity and inclusivity. Consent of 'the governed' in a democratic system of governance is premised on the legitimate authority of the governors. However, MSIs throw up some serious challenges to this democratic principle, with representation commonly restricted to a limited number of affected communities, recipients, donors, or other stakeholders. In turn, the relative power of participating actors also bears on the legitimacy of such arrangements. Issues such as economic resources or language barriers can generate significant inequalities among stakeholders.
Accountability is the ex post mechanism by which rule-makers whose mandates are temporary and conditional can be sanctioned and removed should they fail to satisfactorily justify their actions. This veto power, described by Professor Papadopoulos as the 'shadow of sanctions', if effectively deployed should have a powerful disciplining effect on representatives. According to this standard, MSIs can qualify as what has been termed 'anticipatory representation' by Jane Mansbridge or 'contestatory democracy' by Philip Pettit. In Professor Papadopoulos' view, such unconventional models of accountability have the potential to serve as an important corollary or even substitute for conventional participative mechanisms within multi-level governance arrangements.
But how can we apply this model of accountability on MSIs made up of non-state actors, such as corporations, consumer organisations and labour unions? Professor Papadopoulos acknowledges the complexity of such an endeavour, which often results in 'multiple accountability disorders' (MAD) whereby de facto accountability is often difficult to enforce. The 'problems of many hands' identified by Dennis Thompson may result in a reduction of accountability, with actors jostling to shift blame in governance scenarios defined by multiple lines of command and control. On the flipside, the inclusion of non-state actors can also enhance accountability when they are able and willing to encourage public debate and visibility around the importance of governance implementation - even when cooperation breaks down or formal sanctions are lacking.
Surveying existing MSIs then, it appears that the 'democraticness' of these arrangements remains largely illusory. Professor Papadopoulos' guiding principles can serve as a valuable point of reference. I would, however, suggest that we also need to reflect on what democracy means within rapidly evolving global governance systems. It may be that we need to fuse these classical democratic principles with new democratic logics and modalities which lie at the periphery or beyond of the classical democratic theory box.
Various features of globalisation spill over into the present debate and can provide additional insight. For instance, economic integration seems to have had the twin effects of both diminishing the power of national legislators (think: TTIP), as well as reducing voter turnout. Taken as a whole, such developments place in doubt the ability of a fortiori electoral models of democracy to address governance deficits at the supranational level. Similarly, transnational migration, media outlets and public debates increasingly challenge the arbitrary association of territory with citizenship. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of various, transnational and increasingly impactful grassroots movements demanding respect for democratic norms, justice and related values. Last but not least, globalisation cannot be reduced to trade liberalisation alone. Rather, it encompasses advances in transport and communication technologies - both as a cause and consequence of globalisation - that may yet revolutionise democratic participation through the exponential growth of social networks.
Taken together, these globalising trends demand that we constantly revisit the definitional boundaries and implications of 'transnationalisation'. In particular, scholars and observers would be well advised to frequently revisit conventional understanding and models of political organisation in light of real world developments. While the novelty of these trends should not be overstated, as Professor Papadopoulos pointed out, the potential for revolutionary change and unintended consequences should also not be underestimated. It remains to be seen whether the empowerment of transnational civic and private actors will be reconciled with the democratic precepts of authorisation, representation and accountability. In the meantime, it is incumbent upon scholars and policy-makers to continue to test the conventional boundaries of democratic theory and practice, working both within and outside the box. MSIs provide an important testing ground for innovating a more democratic global governance reality.
Ioannis Papadopoulos is Professor of Political Science at the Institute of International Political Studies (IEPI), University of Lausanne.