Page 217 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Globalization and Democracy 203

those with the greatest economic and military power. In the absence of a
world state, there is no means even of raising taxes to fund international
political institutions, and certainly no global peace - keeping force beyond
that which states provide (McGrew, 1997 : 254 – 7). Others argue that
Held exaggerates the loss of control that states have over processes of
globalization, especially economic processes and, therefore, the loss of
democratic control at the national level (Hirst and Thompson, 1996 ;
Kymlicka, 1999b ; Axtmann, 2002 ). Critics are also skeptical about the
possibilities of developing democracy beyond the nation - state. Democracy
involves more than simply voting, and differences in language, national
context, history, and political expectations will make dialogue and debate

across borders very difficult (as in the European Union) (Kymlicka,
1999b ). Consequently, given the lack of interest ordinary people already
take in foreign issues, it is likely that the perspectives of political elites
will become even more dominant in international organizations, and
popular influence will decline still further. On this basis, Robert Dahl

argues that international organizations cannot be democratic. This does
not necessarily mean that they are illegitimate. They are important as
bureaucratic bargaining systems. But democracy is only possible, however
imperfectly, at the national and sub - national level (Dahl, 1999 ; see also
Urbinati, 2003 ; Woods, 2002 ; Archibugi, 2004 ).
The alternative to cosmopolitan democracy for these critics appears to
be national democracy supplemented by international coordination where
issues affect constituencies beyond national borders. If democracy is the
only legitimate form of rule, and the only really legitimate form of democ-
racy must include multi - party elections, then it is only in national states
that government is legitimate. This suggests that the political representa-
tives who are given a mandate from their electorates to represent them in
Inter - Governmental Organizations are supposed to act either in terms of
explicit policy promises assessed by national electorates or (what is more
likely), what politicians themselves are able to negotiate in the “ national
interest. ” On the other hand, the decisions in IGOs are all themselves
based on voting procedures. This suggests that international bodies see
their decisions as based on a different source of legitimacy to mandates
from national electorates. In some respects, then, IGOs are already making
law and policy for the world. As internationalizing states become more
deeply entangled with each other and with other actors in global gover-
nance, it is not always possible to separate out what is being agreed in
the name of “ national interests ” from wider considerations of interna-
tional concern. Where states themselves are no longer as clearly distinct