A radical reform proposal for the United Nations

The United Nations is our last, best hope for a peaceful and prosperous planet. There exists no other institution with the same universal appeal, the same hold on our collective imagination, the same potential to make the world a fairer place for all of its inhabitants. The new Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, therefore inherits an awesome responsibility: to improve the capabilities of the organisation and to strengthen its role in international affairs for the betterment of humanity.

Unfortunately, strengthening the organisation is easier said than done. The previous Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, attempted many reforms but was, for the most part, stymied by powerful actors interested in the status quo.

Structurally, the United Nations favours the status quo and incumbent power. As supporters of a strong and capable United Nations, this reality leads to an uncomfortable but nonetheless central truth about the institution: the organisational structure, centred on the Secretariat, the Security Council, and the General Assembly does not reflect our democratic and humanitarian sensibilities.

As much as we may have faith in the institution, in the charters, in the norms and ideas that we believe reflect what is best about humanity, we cannot deny the reality that the structure is a compromise to power. The UN suffers from a democratic deficit and as long as this deficit exists, critics will charge - quite fairly - that the organisation has no legitimacy to act out its institutional role.

Of course, I am well aware that not all who criticise the United Nations for its lack of democratic mores are disinterested parties seeking to improve the organisation. These critics, usually American conservatives, use the charge as a political weapon. Their aim is to weaken the institution, such that it cannot be used to restrict the projection of American power. The hypocrisy in this position is of course breathtaking. However, we supporters cannot afford to ignore these critics, nor can we allow them to misappropriate our democratic values for their political gains. We must meet this criticism head-on and in the process create a strong, capable and democratically constituted United Nations.

Structural reform is therefore required - democratic structural reform. This is not a new observation, many have made it and what's more, many have offered solutions. Usually the solution involves adding a second chamber to accompany the General Assembly. In one formulation, members to this second chamber would be democratically elected, with one member accounting for possibly a million constituents. In an attempt to appease the powerful states on the Security Council, the P5, advocates will quite often stipulate that the chamber be “advisory only”. The underlying assumption - hope really - being that over time this second chamber will earn more and more respect and will eventually rival the Security Council.

I do not support this solution. I find it unrealistic for a number of reasons. In the first instance, a second chamber populated by individuals representing electorates would pose a challenge to the charter of the United Nations, which stresses peoples and state sovereignty. A chamber at odds with the rest of the organisation would weaken, not strengthen the United Nations.

Second, the amount of co-ordination and co-operation required to create this chamber would be unprecedented, requiring the active support of virtually all state governments simultaneously. Third, it is naive to expect national governments, no matter how progressive, to support a reform quite clearly designed to reduce their power.

Finally, there exists no powerful constituency at present that will definitely benefit from a second chamber, leading to the obvious question: who benefits?

For those of us interested in democratic reform to strengthen the organisation, a second chamber may hold sentimental value, but in the final analysis it is a false hope.

Recoiling from the term “government” and hoping to appear less “utopian”, another solution sometimes offered involves the nebulous terms “governance” and “networks” as well as the participation of “civil society”. The argument generally goes that the democratic credentials of the United Nations would be enhanced by formally including “civil society” into the proceedings. Civil society referring of course to the many and varied NGOs.

These new networked NGOs, the argument continues, being located close to the communities in which they work can provide the United Nations with a model of “governance” that is both legitimate and workable.

While I agree there is a role for NGOs and more broadly, “civil society”, to play in aiding the United Nations, placing them at the centre in order to reduce the UN's democratic deficit is not feasible.

In the first instance, it is not obvious that these NGOs are any more democratic than the UN itself. It has often been observed that the overwhelming majority of NGOs originate in the West and are accompanied by their usual ideological baggage, making it difficult for non-Western NGOs to break into this networked club.

In addition, while there is obviously a constituency for this reform, the most powerful incumbents, sensing a threat to their power, will actively - and I suggest effectively - oppose any greater role for NGOs. Finally, and notwithstanding their Western origins, the source of NGOs power and effectiveness derives precisely from their ability to work outside the confines of the formal state-based system. Were they to be brought into the United Nations, their effectiveness would either collapse or pose a direct threat to the UN charter.

I believe there is another, radical, option that does not suffer from the flaws identified in the previous two proposals. This radical proposal will likely:

1. improve the democratic credentials of the United Nations;
2. have a constituency, including powerful actors;
3. be effective enough to defy opposition by powerful incumbent actors;
4. be potentially and realistically open to all; and
5. continue to respect the founding principles of the United Nations, namely state sovereignty, self-determination and non-interference.

I propose the direct election of state representatives to replace the present system of selected ambassadors. These representatives would form a new body, say a “United Nations Senate”. This new Senate would be charged with upholding the UN Charter, replacing the illegitimate and anachronistic Security Council. Nations unwilling to elect their representative would still have a place in the General Assembly, but would only have observer status at the Senate.

I understand this is a radical idea that at first blush may sound faintly ridiculous. There are any number of logistical issues to deal with, not least how the reform would affect the interactions between national governments. However, since these logistical issues are only relevant once we have an in-principle agreement in favour of the reform, let me first make the case for replacing selected ambassadors with elected representatives.

Regarding our pre-requisites, this reform clearly improves the democratic credentials of the United Nations.

Second, there are powerful actors who will benefit: large democratic states that are repeatedly denied a permanent position on the Security Council. For progressives in states such as Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, this is a democratic reform in keeping with their values that legitimately increases their say in the organisation. Importantly, the reform does not require universal co-ordination or co-operation; it could easily start with just a handful of states that have the courage of their democratic convictions.

The reform also turns the tables on the UN's fork-tongued critics - how could these champions of freedom and democracy possibly oppose the direct election of UN representatives? Of course, the incumbent P5 powers will oppose the reform, but they will be forced into the rhetorically weak position of opposing democracy. Particularly for the US, Britain and France, this position will not be feasible over the long term.

In fact, given the obvious irrelevancy of the French veto in the face of US aggression towards Iraq, such a reform may be appealing to British and French progressives as well. Importantly, while not all states will decide to elect their representative immediately, there will always be a seat at the table for them, if and when they decide to join.

Finally, this reform does not contradict either state sovereignty or the norms of self-determination and non-interference. Representatives, just like ambassadors today, will be expected to fulfil their role in accordance with the UN Charter and if they cannot, then they will be replaced at the next election.

Furthermore, this reform will likely have many beneficial side-effects. For example, it will be possible to pick a Secretary-General from among the members in the UN Senate. Consequently, the process of selecting a new Secretary-General will be relatively open and give the office holder much greater political leverage to strengthen the capabilities of the United Nations.

In addition, a UN Senate would effectively side-step the illegitimate and anachronistic Security Council and the moribund General Assembly. The Secretariat would find new life as a reformed global Public Service answerable directly to the Senate. Suddenly, we would be able to differentiate between democratic and non-democratic regimes, allowing us to put a stop to the outrageous situation where the likes of Libya, Syria and Sudan can gain a seat on human rights committees.

It would be possible to set minimum standards for what constitutes a democratically elected government, including universal suffrage, secret ballots and independent monitoring. Importantly, it will provide rhetorical ammunition to progressives living in authoritarian states. No longer forced into a defensive position by having to explain the non-democratic actions of democratic states, these people will have a positive democratic story to tell their fellow citizens: elect our representative and we will be able to join the world community as democratic equals.

As mentioned, there are a number of issues associated with this reform. Dealing with the two most obvious; I can easily imagine critics raising concerns about a “world government” that may undermine the liberties that we (that is, we westerners) enjoy. This is unlikely to occur since powerful national governments will continue to exist and be quick to counter any overreach.

A second criticism may be that the reform isn't democratic “enough”, since these individuals will be representing vastly different numbers of people. This is a fair criticism, however, once a UN Senate is established, further reforms will be possible - if required - such that the composition of the Senate may more accurately reflect the distribution of people.

Democratic reform is essential if we supporters of the United Nations wish to strengthen and improve the capabilities of the organisation. Replacing selected ambassadors with elected representatives is an ambitious but entirely feasible first step in the process.