Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and President of the International Progress Organization, Austria Pr...

Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and President of the International Progress Organization, Austria

Prof. Kšchler, the focus of your research is, among other fields, democracy. What is the state of democracy today?

I think the most important issue is whether globalization is compatible with the principles of democracy. In the globalized world more and more decisions are made by non-state actors like, for example, transnational corporations that lack democratic legitimacy, and that are only bound by their economic interests: in such conditions, the governments and the parliaments especially of smaller countries have no chance to influence those decisions which are important for the future of the people in their respective countries. What I mean is that we are facing a worldwide erosion of the democratic process because decisions are made by actors who effectively operate outside the jurisdiction of the nation-states. Very often, governments or parliaments just implement decisions which have already been made somewhere else. Globalization, thus, is creating impediments to democratic decision-making also at the domestic level.

You said "smaller states". Does the erosion of the democratic process involve only small countries? Is the United States, for example, affected by this problem?

This process of erosion has a lesser impact on the United States because this country is as big as an entire continent, so in a certain sense, if it decides to retreat from the world economy to preserve its future, it can survive without much interconnection. Nevertheless, that country's economic corporations have already opted for globalization, so even the United States is facing a great question: should mechanisms of direct participation of the citizens of every country in an international forum be created that could constitute a kind of counter-force? I think it should be possible that the citizens of nation-states participate in elections for a worldwide assembly, a procedure which can circumvent, in a certain sense, those particular economic interests. That is admittedly a rather ambitious project, a long-term project, but I think that we should look at the model of the European Parliament in order to establish a kind of World Parliamentary Assembly.

This is not a recent proposal. The main problem is represented by strategy. How could you reach this goal?

Many propose an inter-governmental treaty, but I am doubtful about it, because if we proceed along this level, we would initially have only a rather small number of states creating a parliamentary assembly which would not be worldwide. It would antagonize the other existing structures, particularly the United Nations, which through its General Assembly may claim to be somehow the parliament of the world.

As an alternative, there is the possibility for the General Assembly to create subsidiary organs (Art. 22 of the Charter), and through this way it is possible to establish a world parliament, but the question is: do these organs make any real difference if the General Assembly itself doesn't have any real competence? Maybe it could represent a first step towards the final goal of having a world parliament for a certain period of time until the moment when a genuine world assembly can be created. It should be a separate organ of the United Nations and this naturally would require an amendment to the UN Charter, which is not imaginable for the time being.

One of your deepest concerns about democracy, in Austria like elsewhere, is represented by the distance between representatives and represented people, that is why you propose the strengthening of instruments like direct democracy, i.e. decisions by referendum. The establishment of a world parliament, if on the one hand can globalize democracy, on the other hand can strongly amplify this problem. How to avoid this risk?

What will be crucial, in that regard, is the modus by which the delegates of this Parliament are elected and the legal definition of their mandate. Elections should be held on the basis of lists of individual candidates (not of "party lists") and each deputy should exercise his/her mandate in close consultation with the electorate of the respective region. Furthermore, on central issues of global security (such as disarmament) regional referenda may be considered that are binding for the respective delegates and that constitute a kind of corrective of representative democracy, something which is highly necessary in such a global context.

What competences should be exercised by a world parliament?

A "world parliament" should draft the guiding principles of international relations particularly in those areas which are most important for the bonum commune of the "international community," e.g. security policy, nuclear disarmament strategies, environmental standards, etc.

The United Nations at the moment is ignored by the hegemonic power and its reform, apart from marginal improvements, doesn't get out of the impasse. The institution seems to be in a crisis without precedents. What do you see in the future of the United Nations?

At the present time I do not see the possibility of a statutory reform of the UN Security Council, because the permanent members, that enjoy the veto power, are not ready to share their privileges with other states. Even if there is an enlargement and new members are added to the Security Council, I don't think that this would lead to a structural reform. The entire institution is being eroded for a particular reason: the United Nations Organization was created at a time when the international system was composed of several major players (the five permanent members of the Security Council), a fact which resulted in a multipolar (later bipolar) balance of power. Now we are facing a situation in which there is no balance of power at all - with only one major actor who obviously circumvents the Security Council whenever he deems it appropriate: for instance, whenever that state realizes that an action would not get the support of the Security Council, that country will act alone and with impunity, exercising its right of veto against any perspective of punishment. For that reason the present situation is almost leading us into a state of international anarchy where the most powerful country does as it pleases. In this context, on the one hand the UN can only watch what is going on, suffering a gradual erosion of its legitimacy due to its increasing irrelevance; on the other hand, whenever the United States sees a possibility to act without the Security Council, it will do so. The hegemonic power will make use of the UN only when this meets its own strategic interests, as we have recently seen in Lebanon where the US consent to the UN operation has been functional to damaging Syrian interests. On the other side, the setting up of an international court to prosecute crimes against humanity committed in Iraq since 2003, which would be absolutely needed, cannot even be discussed in the Security Council because of the US veto threat.

Thus, the United Nations is being sidelined. Because it is based on the principle of multilateral action, i.e. of collective security, it can only work if there is a balance of power. Without it, the organization's legitimacy will be eroded; it will gradually become irrelevant, eventually facing the fate of the League of Nations.

The most important organ of the United Nations is the Security Council, which is also the organ which is most strongly suffering the US hegemony. The last attempt to reform the Council failed in September 2005. In order to correct the dangerous trends you have described, what kind of reform do you propose for the Security Council?

My idea is that first of all we should do away with the veto rule because it is in total contradiction to the principle of the sovereign equality of states. A Charter which embodies contradicting principles causes a serious problem for all those who believe in the international rule of law. This is what Kelsen has dealt with as the question of "normative consistency". In addition to that, my suggestion is to introduce a new category of membership in the Security Council that is not related to individual states (nation-states), but to regional entities. "Permanent membership" should thus be redefined as membership of regions. We should find a formula according to which the entire map of the world can be "divided" (i.e. politically organized) according to such regions. If, for instance, there were a single seat for the European region, the member states of that region should occupy that seat on a rotational basis; the same would apply to the African Union and so on.

What is the difference between what you are proposing and the current system based on regional electoral groupings?

In the present system, there is the principle that in the election of non-permanent members one should pay attention to regional representation. However, as long as one leaves the institution of permanent membership untouched, the Security Council will always be just a tool of decision-making by the five member states; very often we have seen that the other states are not free to vote according to their preferences because they are (economically) threatened by the powerful permanent members. That is what happened in 1990-1991 in the course of the Gulf War. My proposal is that "regional permanent members" replace the five states that now have the status of permanent members.

Are you sure that states which should represent the regional organizations on a rotation basis, will act effectively on their behalf? Consider the European Union and the behavior of France and Great Britain, which according to the Treaties should act in the EU's interest...

What would be necessary if one envisages this permanent membership of regions is that in every region there is a clear constitutional regulation as to how every sitting member should represent the entire regional collectivity; and where there are no such mechanisms within a given region to define a joint foreign policy, an amended Charter of the United Nations should provide such procedures.