Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Graphical Summary of Various Projects& Plans for World Democracy EXPLANATION

A Model of Work Projects for Global Democratization

A Graph and Explanation Presented to the 1st Virtual Congress of the CWC, 2006,
by Kenneth J. KostyĆ³
[ The original graph can be found at ]

This table was drafted to provide a visual model of the variety of plans for global democratization. It positively reveals the wide spectrum of potential political action in the field of global democracy, but it negatively reveals how little is being done in some obvious areas.

The various plans being analyzed are organized from top to bottom on the left-hand side.
The vertical (y) axis entitled “Degree of Democratic Penetration” represents the “depth” of democracy promoted by the various plans. The plans near the top show moderate democratic intervention at the international level. These are more conventional plans starting with basic promotion of democracy within national governments by international actors. Towards the bottom of the vertical axis, appropriately, are “deeper democracy” plans involving more radical levels of citizen involvement in international politics. The most extreme or “deepest” of which would be direct democratic intervention at the transnational level represent here by legally enforceable international popular referenda.
The horizontal (x) axis entitled “Tools” represents the various types of societal engagement that can be taken to realize the plans. They are organized left to right from the lowest to the highest level of impact or potential for change. This table displays three societal sector tools (although more could be envisioned): academic, public awareness, and finally actual political / legal change.

The idea behind this table is that every idea for global democratization can be translated into actual action in different sectors of society.
We can illustrate this by using the well-known example of a popularly elected United Nations assembly (UNPA). UNPA can be written about and further explained and explored in academic journals. Moving to the right on this table we could imagine articles about UNPA in popular newsweekly magazines and then discusses at community meetings, etc.. Further to the right would be lobbying parliamentarians for an UNPA treaty and then the actual drafting of proposed enacting legislation. This processed would be finished i.e. at the farthest right point on our table when the UNPA is formally and legally established.
We can also use a well-known example to show vertical movement along this table. Let us take the example of a law review article written to show the legal applications of global democracy. This would obviously be an effort in the academic sector near the left of our table. Strauss and Falk have written about democratic reform of the United Nations. The work by Dr. Amersinge in support a world constitution would be “farther down” our graph because it is academic work in support of a more drastic level of democratic penetration at the world level.

This table shows that there is a very wide variety of creative projects in the field of global democratization. It also shows, however, that extremely little is being done in most of these areas. Almost every project is ignoring certain tools and/or is doing too little because there are too few funds or activists.
Our success and effectiveness as global democrats depends exclusively one exactly what steps we are taking in these fields and how effectively activists in the various fields are working together.

P.U. = parliamentary uniton – transnational parliamentary
assemblies composed of legislature selected from various
national legislatures.
Bretton Woods organs - World Bank, International Monetary Fund – also now the
World Trade Organization (WTO)

WF = World Federalist
NIGD - Finnish NGO
WPE - German NGO
VWG - Canadian NGO
Yellow highlight = cautionary remarks – even though there is work being down in this area there are still substantial problems to overcome.

Red text = no organized steps being taken in this area
Borders of the cells indicate how effectively activists within the fields are cooperating with each other.

Yellow = too little cooperation and Red = nearly no cooperation.