Definition of the Legitimate Global Sovereign

for a discussion on global democracy --

 

Definition of the Legitimate Global Sovereign

 

We may distinguish between three concepts of a "sovereign" - namely:
(a) legal concept according to existing law
(b) empirical concept, based on observations of effective power
(c) normative-political concept, i.e., who ought to be the sovereign?

 

At the global level - i.e., with respect to the concept of a "global sovereign",
(a) there is no legal concept of a "global sovereign" under existing law
(b) empirical observations exist concerning who holds supreme effective power in the contemporary world-system, but these diagnoses differ, identifying as the effective global sovereign either the U.S.A. as hegemon, or several effectively sovereign states, or the transnational corporation (singular), or global corporations (plural), or rival imperialisms
(c) normative-theoretical concept - this is what I will discuss here.

 

The principle of democratic global sovereignty

 

People in contemporary political movements which understand themselves as democratic tend to believe that "the people" or "popular forces" ought to be the dominant political forces in society. "Democracy" means, translated from Greek, "rule of the people" or "rule of the masses" (Aristotle, who invented the term, thought that this kind of rule was disgusting). This concept forms the base of democratic constitutional theory. For example, the constitution of the United States begins with the three words "We the people. . .". Commentators have interpreted this as meaning that the authority of the US government emanates from the people of the United States and is based on a mandate given to government by the people. This idea is based on the philosophies of democratic theorists like Locke, Rousseau, and others. Similar concepts can be applied at the world level. However, their meaning requires elaboration, clarification and interpretation, in order to be of practical use in a global context.

 

Applying the notion of democracy at the world level, we may say that "popular forces" or "the people" ought to be the dominant political forces in the world, or that they ought to be the global sovereign, or that they are the ultimate source of legitimacy for any effective power structures or effective power holders who may exist in the world-system.

 

A democratic constitution for the world-system could thus begin with the words "We the people ..." (as in the US constitution).

 

This formulation raises problems of meaning and definition around the word "people". An alternative beginning of a constitution for the world-system could be with the words "We the peoples . . ." (here the plural, namely "peoples", is used).

 

There are major differences in political meaning between "the people" (singular) and "the peoples" (plural). Moreover, even the word "people" itself has multiple interpretations. There are three or more major meanings of the word, namely:

 

(a) "people", in the sense of "society" or "civil society" or "the members of society who are not the rulers" (liberal variant)
(b) "people", in the sense of "working class" or "proletariat" (socialist variant). Since about half of the world's population is made up of rural people, mostly  in Third World countries, this concept of "people" could also mean "rural workers" or "peasants".
(c) "people", in the sense of "ethno-cultural group". This notion is being used to defend the rights of ethno-cultural minorities - e.g., by the Zapatistas in Mexico. This notion has also been abused by nationalists, chauvinists, racists and fascists of various kinds.

 

In the context of global democratic theory, we may begin with "We the people" or "We the peoples". Next problem - would we say "We the people of the world. . ."[singular of "people"], or "We the peoples of the world. . ." [plural of "peoples"], or "We the people of the countries of the world. . ." [singular + plural], or "We the peoples of the countries of the world. . ."[plural + plural])? There is a difference in meaning. The formula "the people of the world" (singular) emphasizes, or postulates, the existence of one global people of presently about six billion individuals. In a socialist variety of this formula, the supposition would be that there is one single global working class. In contrast, in the formula "We the peoples of the countries of the world" (plural) the existence of different peoples in different countries is acknowledged and the "We" signifies that those different peoples engage in a common action, in an act of worldwide solidarity of peoples (who may be defined according to definitions a, b, or c).

 

Of course, trying to define who the legitimate global sovereign is (in the context of global democratic theory) is only the beginning of global democratic theory and not the end and not the major part of it either. However, the definition of the legitimate global sovereign is important and constitutive for imagining, designing, and agreeing upon the political-economic mechanisms in the world-system which would be legitimate from the viewpoint of global democratic theory and for which "we the people" are fighting.

 

With greetings from Canada,
Gernot Köhler

 

P.S. I am looking for additional literature pertaining to global democratic theory, articles or books, various languages.
Email: gkohler@accglobal.net