The protests at the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001 brought to the fore the issue of opposition movements' involvement in transnational political decision-making. In 2003, Eurozine published a benchmark contribution to the debate by social and political scientist Claus Leggewie, entitled "Transnational movements and the question of democracy". The article has now been published in Russian translation by the Moscow Journal Neprikosnovennij Zapas (NZ) 39 (1/2005), together wtih the strong responses it generated. Eurozine publishes the debate in full.

Social movements, or NGOs, can mediate between the private sphere and parliamentary politics. NGOs may provide an early warning system to the political system and be engines of social change. But once institutionalized, their lack of a democratic mandate raises problems of legitimacy: NGOs have a democratizing effect but are not themselves accountable.

The paradox must be negotiated if democracy is to prove equal to power exercised at the supra-state level, Leggewie argues. As it stands, transnational political decision-making violates two essential principles: congruence (those affected by power are identical to those exercising it) and attributability (decision-makers are accountable to the electorate). So far, such democratic structures exist only at the nation-state level, the EU being a partial exception.

In the EU, the absence of a genuine European public sphere means members of the European Parliament borrow their mandate from national parliaments. This opens up spaces for oligarchies and lobby groups whose activity remains mysterious to those lacking specialist knowledge. The shortcomings of the EU in this respect do not bode well for transnational regimes on an even greater scale. But how can the dead-end response of parliamentary isolation be avoided?

In "direct democracy", referenda are held on issues where the autonomy of a national unit is at stake. Leggewie introduces the analagous idea of transnational "sectoral constituencies". These exist in policy areas that are not territorially defined – gender or environmemtal politics, for example – and are steered via referenda voted on by expert transnational publics. If "world citizenship" is to be more than merely notional, nation-state citizenship must be supplemented by a sectoral demos such as this.

The Russian responses reveal the western orientation of Leggewie's model. Sergey Lukashevsky, director of the Demos Centre in Moscow, points out that the dissident movements in Soviet Russia were among the forerunners of modern NGOs. These championed democracy per se – as many social coalitions in countries with imperfect democracies still do. But how would such organizations fit in to a system of democracy in which NGOs represent specific publics? And would competition for official status force NGOs to act like mainstream political parties?

Boris Mezhuev, an historian of philosophy and political scientist at Moscow State University, is also wary of sectoralization. Radically, he argues that global democracy as principle is inconsistent if it excludes cultural forms outside western liberalism. But would western nations be prepared to tolerate intervention from outside? Then, there is the historical tendency of the critical Left to capitulate with power once it enters its orbit. Transnational NGOs may become a vehicle for corporate interests to launder "cultural and political capital".

Valery Tishkov, former Russian Minister for Nationalities, points out that national liberation struggles, which have proliferated in post-Soviet Russia, should not be conflated with NGOs. This error is made where ethnic-national divisions are not so sharp. Often, organizations calling themselves "movements" are by no means popular. Some pursue hopelessly separatist agendas; others perform foreign policy functions a state finds inconvenient to accomplish directly; others install "benevolent colonialism" complete with local westernized bourgeoisies. Tishkov warns of placing the legitimacy of the nation-state at the mercy of such ambiguous entitities.



Articles:

Claus Leggewie
Transnational movements and the question of democracy (bg) (de) (en) (ru)
Social movements can provide an early warning system to mainstream politics. But once institutionalized, their lack of democratic mandate raises problems of legitimacy. This paradox must be negotiated if democracy is to respond to the global situation. [Russian version added] [2005-05-20]

Sergey Lukashevsky
A comment on Claus Leggewie's article (en) (ru)
How would NGOs that promote democracy per se fit in to a system of democracy where coalitions representing specific publics compete for official status? [2005-06-01]

Boris Mezhuev
Transnationalization's dead ends (en) (ru)
Is transnationalism premised on the politically correct precepts of western European liberalism? And might transnational NGOs become a way of "laundering" corporate "cultural and political capital"? [2005-06-01]

Valery Tishkov
An anthropology of NGOs (en) (ru)
Organizations calling themselves "movements" are by no means always popular. Placing the legitimacy of the nation-state at the mercy of such ambiguous entitites would be ill-advised. [2005-06-01]

Published 2005-06-02