Because we want a just and sustainable way of managing global affairs and protecting human rights.
For the same reasons we want democracy on a national level, we should want it on a global level too.
Issues of global concern, such as the environment, poverty and security (to name a few) must be tackled collectively.
Today these issues are addressed behind the closed doors of international institutions dominated by the most powerful states with little accountability.
We believe there should be transparency and accountability not only in national politics, but in global politics too.
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that there are many different proposals for 'global democracy' and the term parliament suggests a strict interpretation of that.
Federations, assemblies and other ideas all share the desire for greater democracy at the global level.
Furthermore, the term 'parliament' is the name of the house. They can be democratic to varying degrees. The Syrian parliament, for example, is not the kind of democracy we are proposing!
Therefore, by keeping democracy at the core of the idea, we hope to be constantly working on ways of increasing transparency and representation.
Yes.
The Campaing for a UN Parliamentary Assembly is arguing for representatives from national parliaments, where they "could act as direct representatives of civil society in global decision-making".
However, some believe this is still representation 'once-removed' - i.e. you are not electing someone to represent you at the global level.
Another possible suggestion:
- 600 member parliament (similar to the UK Parliament)
- 10 million member constituencies (similar to the London Mayor)
- Constituency boundaries determined by computer algorithm and later endorsed or modified by the parliament
In the same way that there are many different democracies at a national level (compare the UK, France and Switzerland for three radically different structures), there are different proposals at the global level too.
This site is where we hope to discuss the merits of the various methods, while also stressing our shared commitment to democratising global politics.
There are several ways to answer this.
Currently, China has a veto in the UN Security Council (along with the US, UK, France and Russia) which equates to an effective majority vote in a democratic institution. Even with its more than billion citizens, China would have nothing near the majority vote that it effectively exercises today.
Another way to think about it is to challenge the assumption that citizens will always vote for their 'national interest'. Historically, groups tend to vote on class lines, so you may be more likely to find that labour classes in China, India, South America, Europe vote together while capital classes across those same geographical areas come together aswell.
Finally, another way to think about it is from the human perspective: one Chinese citizen will have no more power than one citizen of any other country if the system is democratic.
Many people argue that members of non-democratic countries will have their votes coerced out of them by their dictators.
Some, like George Monbiot in 'The Age of Consent', have argued that seats in any 'global democracy' could be left empty if coming from a state which has denied the democratic rights of its citizens.
Not necessarily.
A democratic institution that represents us all at the global level is precisely what it says, an institution. In the same way that the UN exists (and does an unsatisfactory job) alongside the state-system, there is no reason why a 'global democracy' cannot exist alongside the state system.
