Can't connect right now! retry

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

The people’s say


September 3, 2016

We are about to elect a new secretary-general for the United Nations. But, ‘we the people’, despite our prominence at the opening of the UN Charter, have almost nothing to do with filling one of the most important public posts in the world; nor, indeed, will the successful candidate be compelled to look after the interests of the world’s seven billion people.

At the very heart of our institutions of global governance a democratic deficit festers. Growing numbers of people – at national level – are angry about their lack of voice, about inequality, corruption and environmental destruction.

There is growing frustration at the perceived failure of power holders to act in the best interests of their citizens. There is anger at the blatant, endemic collusion between economic and political elites.

But, for people who are being repressed, marginalised or excluded at national level, our institutions of global governance are doubling the democratic deficit, legitimising the rule and power of authorities at the national level - instead of offering recourse to protection and support.

While participatory democracy has begun to sweep political institutions at every other level, from local councils to state assemblies to national legislatures, global governance has failed to respond to our changing expectations of citizen participation.

Operationally hard-wired towards meeting the wants of a handful of states rather than the needs of the world’s people, these institutions remain remote and largely disconnected from the lives they impact.

We are told that intergovernmental decisions, often relating to the most pressing global issues - from climate change to international tax law - can be made only by unelected officials, sealing deals behind closed doors.

But this system, one that privileges states - and often corporations - over people, can no longer be acceptable. We urgently need to redesign our global institutions with citizen participation at their heart. We need to democratise global governance, engendering an environment that enables civil society to engage substantively.

We need to build upon the premise that decision-making at the global level should be just as transparent and accountable as at any other level of governance. It should also be as direct as possible.

We need radical new forms of representation and oversight. Perhaps the UN General Assembly should have a “lower house”, populated by citizen-elected representatives; a curb on the excesses of dominant states in the upper house.

Perhaps global governance institutions could be audited on their ability to respond to and achieve progress on issues identified by people, rather than just governments. Leaders of UN agencies should have regular interactions with civil society and the media.

The UN’s current “information centres”, whose primary purpose seems to be to a one-way peddling of UN propaganda, should be reimagined as a means to engage the citizen voice and to feed it into global decision-making processes.

And let’s be clear. These steps are both realistic and achievable. Any barriers to achieving them will be largely political, boiling down to the willingness of states to relinquish the control they currently exercise, and often so jealously guard.

Public awareness of this issue is rising, as is public outrage. But if the UN and other intergovernmental institutions fail to reform, they risk losing more than their dignity. I would argue that it is their credibility and global authority that is at stake.

We have to move urgently from a “one state, one vote” system to one that really represents the interests of “we the people”.

This article has been excerpted from: ‘People should have a say in electing the new UN head’.