Problems of Democratizing Global Governance: Time, Space and the Emancipatory Process

Abstract

s model of cosmopolitan democracy is thus far the most articulate response to the quest to democratize global governance. After criticizing the territoriality, Eurocentrism and linearity of proposed cosmopolitan democracy, I argue that a necessary condition for a global democratization is the development of a global, and pluralist, security community. Therefore it is imperative to tackle questions of who 'we' are and where 'we' are heading, and also to address explicitly the problem of cultural violence. Further, I argue against totalizing blueprints that are not grounded in realist analysis of the relevant context, concrete embodied actors, social relations and mechanisms, and transformative possibilities. Finally, in terms of space, democratic alternatives should not automatically follow the logic of territoriality. With a post-colonial globalist consciousness, we should work for new forms of democratic governance, new forms of democratic participation, representation and accountability, in the context of radically open world history. Concrete utopias can also be innovative.

Global justice: A democratic perspective

“…Hence, my analysis of global justice is, in the end, decisively an argument for global democratization (cf. Patomäki, 2003b;Patomäki and Teivainen, 2004;Held and Patomäki, 2006).…”

Cosmopolitanizing and decosmopolitanizing globalization: Metaphorical re-description and transformations of political community

“…Second, growing out of the first, assuming settled citizenship also assumes that layers of governance only need to be added to the local and national at regional and global levels (cf. Cochran, 2002;Patomäki, 2003).…”

“…It arranges political authority in a vertical and hierarchical structure from the local to the global-from Glasgow, to Scotland, to the UK, the EU and beyond (Patomäki, 2003). This is not only a matter of territoriality-writ-large in a global space, but it is a replication that gives ontological priority to the state as a locus of membership and political agency-and so maintains the view that individual autonomy is rooted in the state.…”

Global Governance and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bridging the gap between proponents and opponents

“…Specifically, most, if not all, of its advocates come from the West and their scholarly work reflects a normative background with an emphasis on democracy and human rights, which historically is contingent upon the history, civilization and progress of the West, and therefore also upon the Western liberal assumption of progress and the linear evolution of humanity. Such a view of history, however, may well not be shared by all, or most, parts of the global population (Patomaki, 2003). It is argued here that lip service has to be paid to the necessity to create truly global institutions that are more inclusive and representative of the world order.…”