On a trip to South Africa last week George Monbiot spoke to the Mail & Guardian about his ideas for a just and democratic world regime, detailed in his new book The Age of Consent. Aimed at breaking the economic and political hegemony of the great powers — principally the United States — Monbiot’s proposed dispensation would rest on the four pillars of a directly elected world parliament, a democratised United Nations, a fair trade organisation and an international clearing union (see accompanying story).
The British couldn’t care less about the European Parliament. Wouldn’t the world’s people react in the same way to some remote global forum?
This is a problem — democracy works best at the community level, where the people are close to their representatives. But a world parliament wouldn’t be as far from the ideal as the global dictatorship we have now.
The European Parliament lacks credibility because it was tacked on to the European Union project without popular involvement. Democracy doesn’t work that way; it must be built from the bottom up, it has to come from the people.
I’m suggesting we build a global parliament on the World Social Forum, which in Mumbai drew 100 000 people from 170 nations, all with tremendous determination to act. It has enormous potential.
You would gradually formalise the institution, with delegates going back to their communities. You couldn’t impose it; you’d have to get the people behind it at every stage. The aim would be a one-person, one-vote representative democracy, although you’d need an element of direct participation.
Given the economic and military sway of the major powers, wouldn’t a world parliament be an empty talking shop, marginal to events?
The parliament would never exercise total control; a single overriding authority would be a disaster. With military muscle, it might become an even worse dictatorship than we have now. It would be one of a number of players at the national level, including national governments, a reformed UN and a fair trade organisation, which would interact and check each other’s power.
The parliament would exercise only the moral authority of representing the world’s people, and would use that to hold other bodies to account. If the World Bank ignored it, it would lose legitimacy.
There’s not a lot the poorer countries can do within existing world bodies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organisation. The first two operate on the fine old democratic principle of one dollar, one vote — the US has a 17% stake in the IMF and 18% of the bank, giving it veto powers in both. They are constitutionally bound to listen only to the rich nations — which is why I call for countries to find ways of exercising power outside them.
Wouldn’t the big powers ensure, by lobbying and other means, that the delegates to the world parliament do their bidding?
One problem with the UN is that all representatives are delegated by governments, and for this reason, can be blackmailed. When Yemen voted against the first Gulf War, the US ambassador to the UN turned to his Yemeni counterpart and said: “That’s the most expensive vote you’ve ever cast.” The next day the US pulled the plug on aid to Yemen. It’s very important that the parliament is directly elected, not nation-based. Ideally, you would have transborder constituencies, with part of South Africa grouped with part of Mozambique, or even Brazil. This would also serve to weaken the nation state and drive home the message that we are all global citizens and members of one species.
It’s a safe bet that authoritarian governments such as China would not allow their citizens to vote for a world body.
Obviously the greater the number of nations represented, the greater the parliament’s moral authority. But we have to build it, and we have to start from where we’re at. At the outset, elections for a country like China might have to take place in the exile community. It would be a slow process.
A redistribution of power in the UN would also hold advantages. If, as I propose, representation in the General Assembly was determined by a country’s population size and degree of democracy, there would be a powerful incentive to democratise.
Wouldn’t that system also work against population control?
You would have to structure things so that the quickest and most effective route to voting power in the UN would be to democratise. But in any event, the real problem we face is resource consumption, not population growth. With proper distribution, the planet could comfortably support nine billion people.
Many of the world’s most intractable problems arise from real conflicts of interest. With only moral authority, how would a world parliament tackle Israel/Palestine?
The UN has had no impact on that problem, despite being able to use force. Clearly, if you’ve got the world’s most powerful country behind you, as Israel has, no amount of resolutions from any quarter will make a difference.
A global parliament would not be a panacea; you’d always have that balance at national level between it, nation states and the UN. But it would allow the world’s people to articulate their demands.
How would you keep the world’s billions informed of the concerns, debates and resolutions of a world parliament — a requirement for meaningful elections?
The mass media pose one of the greatest challenges for democracy everywhere — they’re generally run by millionaires who want a better world for millionaires, a world that depends on vast amounts of inequality. I believe the answer lies in a few progressive mainstream media, like the M&G, supplemented by alternative methods of communication like those of Paulo Frere.
To force the wealthy nations to accept democratic change, you argue that the poor world should default on its debts. Wouldn’t that just invite reprisals?
Of course the rich world would do its utmost to divide and rule. But if there was real solidarity among poor countries — if they all defaulted together — the world would be a very different place. I was encouraged to see the formation of the G20 last year, discouraged that it hasn’t stuck together effectively. It represents the first stirrings of Third World solidarity since the 1970s. Unity seems strongest among the middle-income countries; it’s among the lower-income nations that work is needed
You know the old joke: if you owe the bank £100, you have a problem; if you owe it £1-million, the bank has a problem. There is more debt in the global economy, $2,5-trillion, than in international reserves. Mass default by the indebted nations, or just the threat of it, could be used as a kind of structural adjustment programme for the rich. The financial markets, which are afraid of their own shadows, would rush to their governments and say: give them what they want.
The US has consistently refused to surrender sovereignty to world bodies. Wouldn’t it make sure that ideas like yours don’t get off the ground?
We might just have to let the US implode. Look at the size of its deficit, the size of its financial problems — and if Bush gets back in, the process will accelerate. Of course the whole thing won’t go pop at once, but sustained American hegemony is not going to happen.
I believe it’s essential that other countries form effective blocs; I’d love to see the EU emerge as a much more effective counterweight to the US. In 10 or 20 years, America is going to lose out to East Asia, maybe Europe, maybe South Asia. Debt is one weapon, credit another — the Chinese extend $2,3-billion of credit to the US every day; the savings culture of East Asia subsidises and props up the US economy.
What kind of reception have your proposals got?
They’ve certainly triggered a lot of debate; some people are extremely enthusiastic, others opposed. The forces of reaction have come out against them, so I must be on to something! My book is not a blueprint; it is, I hope, the beginning of a process. I hope it stimulates people to come up with better ideas.
It’s natural to pooh-pooh a new set of proposals. But not coming up with solutions is no answer. We have a global crisis, and we’ve got to have global proposals.
If humanity is to survive …
Environmentalist George Monbiot doubts the human race will survive the 21st century.
He points out that when the Earth last underwent a 6degrees Celsius warming, in the Permian Age 250-million years ago, 90% of life forms became extinct.
“We are looking at a 6 degrees Celsius increase by 2100 — but it could be as high as 10 degrees Celsius or 12 degrees Celsius.”
The 0,6 degrees Celsius rise already experienced has had a major disruptive effect on the world’s climate.
One of the greatest threats to humanity’s future is the reversion to coal as an energy source as oil stocks become depleted, he believes. Being far more carbon-dense, coal is a potent source of climate- changing gases.
Monbiot is convinced that a global dictatorship, serving only the interests of the wealthy nations’ elites, is driving the planet to the brink.
He proposes a new “Age of Consent” to replace an age of coercion, with four central features:
A directly elected world parliament, with about 600 delegates representing constituencies of about 10-million voters each.
In the early years at least, this would have neither army, police, courts nor state bureaucracy.
Monbiot estimates the parliament would cost about $300-billion to set up and $1-billion a year to run, while a global election would cost about $5-billion.
A world lottery, and aid from some liberal democracies and the United Nations, are mentioned as possible funding sources. Corporate funding would not be allowed.
However, Monbiot suggests his proposed international clearing union mechanism might provide the requisite funds.
A democratised UN, without a Security Council that gives each of the five permanent members veto rights and control of General Assembly business.
Power would devolve to a revamped General Assembly, with voting power set according to a country’s population size and democratic credentials.
A fair trade organisation designed to rebalance trade by handicapping the rich nations.
On a sliding scale, the poorest countries would have free trade privileges and access to new technologies, while these rights would be progressively curtailed for wealthier states.
An international clearing union, first mooted by economist John Maynard Keynes at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference and rejected by the US, to prevent the crippling accumulation of debt.
Essentially, all nations would have trading accounts with the union, and would pay interest on any surplus or deficit.
Monbiot suggests the “reserve fund” for interest payments could be used to finance the world parliament. — Drew Forrest