I regularly get into discussions with other socialists about supranationalism. And the gut-reaction of many, is that supranational mechanisms and structures are intrinsically undemocratic, and that the only way to true democracy is through strengthening the nation-state, and relegating international cooperation to intragovernmental structures. I believe this is a very problematic view for anyone who wishes to confront the democratic challenges of globalization, and I believe it rests on several misconceptions:
1. National government is the only democratic form of government. This is not true. Not only is the nationstate not a guarantor for democracy, but democratic forms of government are already being exercised at subnational and supranational levels. Local government exists in a subdivision of the nationstates, and both federal states and the EU can be democratic, or have democratic structures. (Although in the case of the EU, one can certainly discuss the many imperfections and shortcomings of the system, but we’ll leave that for later).
2. The nation is a homogeneous, natural unit of government. This is not true. Almost no nationstate has been founded in a territory both comprising all members of that nationality, and no members of other nations. My own country, Norway, has several “national minorities”, such as the Sami, Finns and Kvenes. Establishing the borders of Germany has proven excessively difficult over the last couple of hundred years, and France (the original nationstate in many ways) became French through harsh oppression of any deviating language and culture. In Spain, Franco imposed Castillian as the nation’s language, pushing Catalan and Basque culture underground. In a sense, we can say that the nations exist because nationalism became a suitable way for absolute rulers in the years after the peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the French revolution in 1789 to secure control over their territories. Switzerland, which has had very stable and secure borders and a strong (albeit very conservative) democratic tradition, comprises four very different language communities, without falling apart for that reason.
3. Supranationalism is less democratic than intergovernmentalism. This is not true, and illogical. Whether or not a decision-making structure, mechanism or body is democratic or not, must principally rest on a) whether or not it is popularly elected and accountable, b) whether or not its deliberations and processes are transparent and c) whether or not it provides equal access to the system for all who wish to influence it. Regarding a), the Swiss parliament is democratically elected, as well as the European Parliament, the Belgian parliament, the British parliament and the United States Congress. The Belorussian parliament is not. Regarding b), All the aforementioned democratically elected bodies have fully transparent decision-making processes. In the case of the EU, parts of the processes are not fully transparent, but these parts take place in predominantly intergovernmental bodies (the Council) or bureaucratic bodies (the Commission) – and even these parts are more accessible than what is usual in many intergovernmental or bureaucratic bodies, both at the international and the national level. Regarding c), the image is more complex. In order to provide equal access, a polity needs fairly equal distribution of resources necessary for political participation, such as knowledge, money and time. However, whether such a distribution of resources exist, is not an inherent trait of either a supranational polity or a national one. It depends on the society in which the polity exists, and what sort of decisions have been reached there over time. One major handicap for supranational polities however, is distance. With increasing distance, the cost of participation for people living far from the seat of government will increase, given that there is only one centre or central region. But this need not always be true – the distances within Norway are greater than within Switzerland, although Norway is a unitary nationstate. (Interestingly, this provides the greatest disadvantage to the Sami population.) And with cheaper transportation and telecommunications, geographical access depends more on infrastructure than on actual distance.
Another important aspect of this last fallacy is that many believe intergovernmental structures to be more democratic. This must rest on a misconception – that international law is only generated through unanimous decisions, which must then be popularly ratified in each state, either by referendum or by the national assembly. It can’t rest on the nature of decision-making processes in intergovernmental bodies, as these are often done in secret by diplomats and ministers, many of which are not popularly elected, even indirectly. So we’re left with a belief in the democratic making of international law. But this is not true either. Many treaties and conventions can be amended by qualified majorities, and some become binding even on non-signatories, as they are seen as expressions of customary international law. The Vienna convention on treaties is a good example – Norway has not ratified it, but may still be considered bound by its provisions, as it expresses customary law.
Supranational decision-making bodies need not be very democratic either – just look at the Security Council of the United Nations.
4. Supranational decisions are enforceable on those who disagree, ergo, they must be undemocratic. The whole point of supranational decision-making is to be able to enforce decisions on a nation that disagrees with it, in exchange for this nation being (theoretically) able to be part of a similar majority later on. The very concept of democracy entails that the majority decides – but not that there needs to be unanimity always. As long as there are proper safeguards for minority rights, democracy is usually beneficial to all those who participate. Unanimity is not democratic, as it opens up for a dictatorship of the very few. In a decision-making body that takes decisions on more than one issue, any one player may veto one issue to get something on another issue. With enough players or enough issues (or both), decisions beneficial to everyone may not be taken.
In summary, whether supranationalism is democratic or not, and more or less democratic than politics in the framework of the nationstate, depends more on how the processes are structured – on the constitution of the system, than on what level the decisions are taken. In light of this, I choose to incorporate supranational decision-making in the toolbox of fighting for a more democratic world.
