A radical reform proposal for the United Nations

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.