- 1 -

Paper presented at the International Conference on Democracy as Idea and Practice, University of Oslo, January 14-15, 2010, Oslo. Can Participation Influence the Legitimacy of International Organization(s)? - Bhavna Thakur* Abstract: The paper tries to make an attempt to address the issue of legitimacy of International Organizations (IOs) like – the IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank and the World Trade Organizations (WTO); through the prism of participation. The paper highlights the issue of democratic deficit at the global level as a cause for the inability of these organizations to internalize the local needs. Therefore causing attack on the legitimacy of these organizations. The paper tries to thematically trace the roots of legitimacy and the way it is embedded in the perception of the people. Further the paper tries to channelize the same for determining the legitimacy of International Organizations. The paper also proposes various standards of legitimacy that needs to be adopted by these organizations to facilitate participation. . Introduction: In the age of globalization, the political did not die, it just migrated1.

In today’s world, where organizations like the IMF, World Bank and WTO are

considered to be the main pillars of globalization, still the question pertaining to their

legitimacy is a contested issue. Many argue that the issue of legitimacy does not apply to

these organizations, as legitimacy being a highly political issue gets restricted to the

domestic domain. On the other hand, the influence of policies made by these

organizations makes it imperative to assess their legitimacy. Assessing the legitimacy of

International Organizations is a Herculean task, as there exists paucity in the literature, 1 Michael Zürn, ‘Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems’, Government and Opposition, 2004, p. 277. *The author is a Research Scholar pursuing Ph.D from Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India. E.mail: bhavnathakur.25@gmail.com

- 2 -

which determines it. The existing literature determining the legitimacy of these

organizations is mostly skewed towards efficiency and output. The paper argues that in

order to determine the legitimacy of these organizations, there rises a need to focus on the

people who get affected by these global governance institutions. Therefore the discourse

of legitimacy of IOs needs to take into consideration people’s perceptions.

Determining the legitimacy of any domestic entity is easy, as there is a definite

jurisdiction that determines the people falling under its domain. On the other hand, the

absence of unified global people2 makes it difficult to assess ‘the people’ who would fall

under the ambit of global governance. These lacunae’s in the global system have added

on to the complexity of determining the legitimacy of an IO. There persists diversity in

the global system, and the actors who get affected from the global governance institutions

constitute a community that is heterogeneous. Such a situation can affect the way people

perceive the legitimacy of an IO. What maybe legitimate for one constituency maybe

illegitimate in the eyes of the other3 . “When the exact standard of legitimacy is unclear,

then one should look at the public support for global governance institutions”.4 Thus,

while addressing to the issue of legitimacy of an IO there arises a need to take into

consideration the people who get affected by their decisions. The inclusion of such

people would help in displaying their wants and aspirations at the global levels. In order

to build upon the argument the paper is divided into four sections: The first section deals

with the impact of IOs on the local communities. The second section focuses on the issue

of Democratic Deficit prevailing in these organizations and the legitimacy problems

faced by these institutions. The third section tries to analyze the concept of legitimacy of

a domestic entity and further tries to apply it to determine the legitimacy of IOs. The last

section concludes the paper and focuses on the issues that need attention and which could

not be covered in the paper.

2 Jean- Marc Couicad, and Veijo Heiskanan, eds., The Legitimacy of International Organizations, Tokyo, 2001, p. 7. 3G.C.A Junne, ‘International Organizations in a period of globalization: New (problems of Legitimacy)’, in Couicad and Heiskanen, eds., The Legitimacy of International Organization, Tokyo, 2001, p. 192. 4Allen Buchanan and Robert E. Keohane, ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’, Ethics and International Affair, 2006, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 407.

- 3 -

I

The process of globalization has intensified the integration of countries across the globe

in many aspects- economic, social, political and cultural. Along with the intensification

there has been a high level of dependency of various countries on each other. Instances

like- tackling issues of global terrorism, the present financial crisis or pandemic like the

swine flu marks the need for dependency of various nations amongst each other. Such

instances stress a transnational setup where there are various actors. According to Held,

in the contemporary world the term globalization stresses on the intensification of

transnational relationship.5 However, these cross-political spaces created by transnational

relationships are guided by international relations and these international relations are

influenced by International Organizations. “International Organizations is a process of

organizing the growing complexity of international relations”.6 These IOs have been

centrally placed; still there are various other actors that are emerging in the global

scenario.

Global economic and social affairs which traditionally embraced the intergovernmental

agencies have started confronting to the local and international NGOs, MNCs, Grassroot

citizen’s movements and capital markets.7 Even though these organizations have been

placed centrally in the process of global governance, the shift of the nation states to

confront to various other actors highlights shift of support from these organizations. This

has been because of the inability of these organizations to deliver the desired goals. Still,

these organizations are considered as the engines of global governance and hold an

important position while framing policies at the global level. For instance, the present

Financial Crisis placed the IMF in such a position that it gained confidence of various

countries, without proving its credibility. The financial crisis integrated the countries

across the globe to come together to fight the worst global economic and financial crisis,

after the Great Depression. The countries decided to boost up IMF’s funds; despite

5 As cited in, Susan Marks. ‘Democracy and International Governance’, in Jean- Marc Couicad, and Veijo Heiskanan, eds., The Legitimacy of International Organizations, Tokyo, 2001, pp. 50-1. 6 S.J.R Bilgrami, International Organizations: A View from Within, New Delhi, 1977, p. 1. 7 Thomas. G. Weiss, ‘Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges’, in Rorden Wilkison, ed., The Global Governance Reader, London, 2005, p.82.

- 4 -

protests.8 Proposals have been made to bring about reforms in the Fund’s working.9

These instances prove the importance of such global governance institutions, besides

their ability to work efficiently.

Localizing the Global: Reversing the Global Effect:

The magnitudes of the policies made by these organizations are so intense that they have

the ability to surpass the global arena and infiltrate to the local regions. The consequence

of such policies can be evident in the form of chain reactions which flow from the global

order, further affecting the local regions. One such instance that depicts such chain

reaction was the adoption of the reforms of Washington Consensus. The ‘Washington

Consensus’ which was the cornerstone of many reforms, was initiated by the IMF and the

World Bank. These reforms envisaged in it many policies that the makers presumed

would help attain development and enhance market efficiency. These reforms were10:

i. Fiscal Discipline ii. Public Expenditure Priorities

iii. Tax Reforms iv. Interest Rates

v. Exchange Rates vi. Trade Liberalization

vii. Privatization viii. Deregulation

ix. Foreign Direct Investments x. Property Rights

However, these reforms did not generate the expected results, rather the implementation

of these reforms drastically changed the lives of million of living in the places where the

policies where implemented.11 The negative impact of these policies generated

inequalities across many regions of the globe. Such negative impacts have generated a

very pessimistic view of globalization and many scholars have critiqued globalization for

being lopsided. The major instance being that- “about 80% of the world’s population in

developing countries lives below the poverty line, which is marked by low incomes and

8 IMF Grows with Crisis: No longer Considered Irrelevant, The Washington Times, 27th April’ 2009, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/27/imf-role-grows-with-crisis/ 9 T.N Srinivasan, India and The G-20 Washington Summit, The Hindu, Monday, 10th Nov’ 08 online edition available at http://www.thehindu.com/2008/11/10/stories/2008111056011100.htm 10 Moisės Naim, “Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion”, Foreign Policy, No. 118, Spring, 2000, p. 89 11 Ibid., p.90.

- 5 -

high poverty, high unemployment and low education”.12 The effect of the global policies

on the local communities represents the adoption of discriminatory nature adopted by

these organizations, which affirms one’s belief in criticizing these institutions for

ignoring the issues related to the local areas.

Apart from these IOs, the national governments too need to be criticized for invariably

encouraging the adoption of these policies, which have affected their citizens.

Globalization has made the governments sign the rights of their citizens in favor of

speculative investors and transnational companies which have lead to the erosion of

social welfare standards and environmental concerns.13 This focuses on the disjunctions

between the local and the national, which has affected the policy making at the global

level. The discriminatory behavior adopted by these global governance institutions has

raised resistance against them. The confluence of discriminating nature against the local

communities and discarding the needs of the locals has resulted in many contestations.14

The contestations are a result of the incompatibility of the global policies in the local

spheres; these contestations have resulted in resistances to adopt policies made by these

organizations, which has been named as dysgovernance15. The basis of such resistances

/dysgovernance has been attributed to the inability of these organizations to internalize

the needs of the people. To overcome dysgovernance and resistances, there arises a need

for these organizations to internalize the local needs by acts of what Ginsborg calls

‘reappropriation’, which means to take back control over one’s own destiny by the

inhabitants who never where given control over in the earlier places.16 This would require

a global order that ensures representation and participation the heterogeneity community.

Thus arises the need to include all those people (who get affected by these IO) while

dealing with the issue of legitimacy of these organizations.

12 Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, London, 2006, p. 26. 13 As cited in, Colin Hines, Localization: A Global Manifesto, London, 2000, p.4. 14 Dhanya K.S, Global Standards and Local Contestations: Local Regimes of the Forest and the Indegenious People in Kerela, Unpublished Work, 2008, Dissertation submitted to JNU, New Delhi 15 Feargal Cochrane, Rosaleen Duffy and Jan Selby, Global Governance, Conflict and Resistance, New York, 2003, p.155. 16 Paul Ginsborg, The Politics of Everyday Life: Making Choices, Changing Lives, New Delhi, 2006. p.9.

- 6 -

The inclusion of the locals at the global level can be only possible if these people are well

represented at the global level, especially in the areas where these developmental plans

percolate. Such representation can be possible if there is plurality of actors. This would

require actors who can represent their interest at various levels: global, national and local.

This would require a democratic global structure.

II

Democratizing the global structure is not a simple issue. The commission on Global

Governance (1995) identifies a range of democratic deficits that exist in the global

political system, which have undermined the global political order and has acted as a

hindrance in the process of global governance.17 These undermined political orders have

resulted in formulation of policies that have restricted the involvement of the people.

“Democratic Deficit means that issues that are, or should be, of importance to ordinary

citizens do not get the attention they deserve.18 This problem of democratic deficit is a

consequence of lack of engagement of various actors. Raising concern over the issue of

democratic deficit, Steve Charnovitz discusses the three possibilities occurring in the

global order- Firstly, international organizations do not run in a democratic manner vis-à-

vis participating states; Secondly, international law and treaties do not mandate

democracy within each state and Thirdly, International Organizations are not run

democratically, i.e. The public gets ignored.19 Analyzing the three possibilities reveals

that the cause of democratic deficit is the ill-representation of people in these

organizations. The ill-representations at the global levels provide the evidences of

transnational exclusions prevalent in the global scenario. Addressing the issue of

democratic deficit as ‘transnational exclusion’, Raffele Marchetti raises concerns over

such exclusions prevailing in the present global scenario. According to Marchetti,

transnational exclusion occurs, “when an actor is deprived of his/her entitlements to

17 Jean Grugel, ‘Democratization Studies Globalization: The Coming of Age a Paradigm’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 5, no.2, 2003, p. 270. 18 Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, London, 2006, p. 290. 19 Steve Charnovitz, ‘The Emergence of Democratic Participation in Global Governance (Paris, 1919)’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 10, no. 45, 2003, p. 48.

- 7 -

influence public decisions at the international and global level”.20 The present

international affairs display a high order of exclusion and disentrancement.

IMFs Managing Director in 1992 expressed the need for ‘democratizing the social

decisions’ in Latin America for ensuring the IOs accountability, as this would help the

IOs enjoy the support and trust of the societies.21 The World Development Report 1994

also highlighted the need for user involvement in project designing and implementing of

the projects22. Thus emphasizing on projects that engaged more and more people from the

regions where the project was being implemented. These recommendations indirectly

suggest in shedding- off the technocratic approach while framing global policies and

adopt an inclusive approach, which reflects the societal wants and aspiration.

Highlighting the need for nation- states to take into cognizance the local knowledge and

needs, Scott argues that policies made by the state’s fail because these policies does not

take into account the Mėtis (local knowledge), the signifies that the states do not try and

understand the aspirations of the locals. The study draws example of mass village-ization

in Tanzania and how it failed because of ignoring the local needs and requirements.23

Such instance stands true even for these IOs; where the decisions made by them have

resulted in negative repercussions. The East- Asia Crisis is an instance which truly

represents a technocratic approach. Stiglitz argues that the problem is not in

globalization, but the way globalization has been managed24. He blames the hegemonic

nature of globalization for placing the developed countries at a disadvantaged side. In

order to make globalization work, Stiglitz suggests the need to overcome democratic

deficit.

To acquire a democratic structure at the global level is a complex issue, as there prevails

diversity in population. Held while referring to a state, highlights the importance of

20Raffaele Marchetti, Global Democracy: For and Against, London, 2008, p 19. 21 As cited in, Ngaire Woods, ‘The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank themselves”, World Development, vol. 28, no. 5, 2000, p. 842. 22 World Bank, World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development, Oxford University Press, p. 73. 23 James Scott , Seeing Like a State: How certain schemes to improve the human conditions have failed, London, 1998, p. 7. 24 Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, London, 2006 p.12.

- 8 -

democracy, as not only the way of handling political projects like- power and

accountability, but also in addressing the issues of handling heterogeneity25. This is

where the issue of democracy in the contemporary era needs to focus in the globalized

world. “Contemporary democracy wants reconstruction around the transscalar space,

polycentric governance and plural collective identity”26. Scholte argues that such a

situation can be achieved by ensuring- rule by the people, developing modes of civic

education, and building effective institutional mechanisms of public accountability.

Focus should also be laid on- equal opportunity for all in political involvement, nurturing

positive practices of intercultural recognition communication and negotiations. Such

situation would require interdependence and interconnectedness, which surpasses the

frontiers of nation- state and look at the role of IOs, Global Markets and NGO in setting

up a collective life.27 Such ‘collective life’ demands a situation that facilitates what

Ginsborg calls ‘reappropriation’, i.e. the ability of the people to represent and participate

in the activities at the global level.

‘Reappropriations’ through collective life would require interconnectedness and

networking, ‘just as globalizing process do’. This will help democracy become a

transnational affair, which is linked to the expansion of democratic institutions and

agencies.28 Thus, Held suggests ‘cosmopolitan polity’ as a mechanism to attain

democratic public forum.29 Facilitating a polity that is cosmopolitan in nature requires

plurality of actors and a variety of political processes. This would need intense

coordination and cooperation. The diverse range of actors included would be:

• Different forms of Intergovernmental Bodies;

• Increasing Number of Public Agencies;

• Diverse Business Actors;

• NGO s; and

25 David Held, Models of Democracy, Cambridge, 1999, p. 383. 26 J A Scholte, ‘Reconstructing Contemporary Democracy’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol.15, p. 2. 27 Susan Marks, “Democracy and International Governance”, in Couicad and Heiskanan, eds., “The Legitimacy of International Organizations”, Tokyo, 2001, p. 51. 28 Susan Marks, “Democracy and International Governance”, in Couicad and Heiskanan, eds., “The Legitimacy of International Organizations”, United Nations University Press, 2001, p. 51. 29 David Held, Models of Democracy, Cambridge, 1999, p. 383.

- 9 -

• Public Bodies, Business Actors and NGOs collaborating through multi-stake

networks.30

Addressing the issue of democracy at the global level requires a multifaceted strategy,

which involves a gamut of actors. The inclusiveness of these actors needs to be ensured at

various levels- global, national and local; along with proper coordination amongst them.

Then only the local needs will get placed at the global level. The inclusion of these actors

would help in taking into cognizance the local needs and such inclusion, as their

exclusions have attacked the legitimacy of these organizations.

III

Issue of Legitimacy and International Organizations:

What is Legitimacy? : ‘Legitimacy’ is an important element for any organization; it not

only establishes the identity of an entity, but also determines the existence of an entity.

Legitimacy, loosely, would mean the acceptability of an institution to possess the right to

rule. An institution in order to be considered legitimate should possess the ability to rule.

Legitimacy is a highly subjective concept, while addressing to it at the national context- it

refers to the ‘acceptance of a government’, by majority of citizens.31 The acceptance of

the people, acknowledges the existence of the government. The concept of legitimacy

revolves around the acceptance of the masses.

“Legitimacy is the recognition of the right to govern”.32 The word ‘legitimacy’ is derived

from the Latin word ‘law’ and has the same roots as the legislator and legislation, thus a

legitimate authority is considered lawful, just and right.33 The affirmation of an act to be

considered lawful, just and rights are not determined by the authority, rather such beliefs

are embedded in the way the society thinks. Thus, law alone can not be the consideration

of any entity to become ‘legitimate’; the action of the entity needs to be ‘desirable, proper 30David Held, ‘Democratic Accountability and Political Effectiveness from a Cosmopolitan Perspective’, Government and Opposition Ltd, 2004, p. 367. 31 G.C.A Junne, ‘International Organizations in a period of globalization: New (problems of Legitimacy)’, in Couicad and Heiskanen, eds., The Legitimacy of International Organization, Tokyo, 2001, p. 191. 32 Jean-Marc Coicaud, Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political responsibility, Cambridge, 2002, p. 10. 33Andrew Vincent, Theories of the State, Oxford, 1987, p. 38.

- 10 -

and appropriate’34, in order to be considered legitimate. The right action enhances the

relations between the governing and the governed. Heiskenen determines the legitimacy

by relating state or the government on the one hand, and the people or the individuals on

the other hand.35 The relation here exists because the people allow the state to rule and

abide its rules. Adding a political dimension to the angle of legitimacy, Couicad brings

out a perspective of how legitimacy can be seen i.e., the “relationship of command and

obedience in terms of rights (droit) and to play a dynamic of responsibility on the part of

the governor and the governed36. Here, a stress has been laid on the importance of the

‘consent of the people’. The ‘rights’ should be validated by the people/ community and

the community should stand in favor of these ‘rights’. This requires the institution- that

makes the laws, to capture the fundamental essence of law of the group. The acts of

legitimacy need to justify political power and obedience.37 Thus, the legitimacy of an

organization is deeply rooted in the conception of how the people/ masses perceive the

actions of that entity.

In order to attain a situation where the values and aspiration of the people gets reflected

in the decisions of the people, their participation is required. As they ‘themselves’ can

represent their ideas and aspiration well. The state in order to acquire legitimacy would

need participation, which can be facilitated by democracy. Democracy is not only a

source of enhancing participation; rather it also substantiates the existence of an entity

and facilitates its acceptance. According to Robert Dhal, “an important ingredient for

legitimacy of even dictators is a dash or two the language of democracy”.38 A democratic

setup would require the state to encourage the involvement of public in its activities; such

involvement would facilitate the needs of the public.

34 Steven Bernstein and Benjamin Cashore, ‘Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework’, Regulation and Governance, 2007, vol. 1, p. 5. 35 Ian Hurd, ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, vol. 53, no. 2, Spring, 1999, p. 381. 36Jean-Marc Coicaud, Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political esponsibility, Cambridge, 2002, p. 2. 37Ibid., p. 10. 38 Robert Dhal, Democracy and Its Critics, Yale, 1989, p. 2.

- 11 -

The amalgamation of political power and obedience can only be reflected if the state

embodies the fundamental values and aspirations.39 According to Vincent, the true

depiction of human values can be reflected by ‘public power’, public power is the real

essence of the state, which displays the will of the people. Vincent argues that the true

representation of participation gets depicted in the pluralistic theory of the state, which

advocates a participatory setup which involves many actors. The situation where the

public gets an opportunity to reflect their needs and aspirations helps generate consent

regarding the state’s actions.

Such consent affirms the legitimacy of the state, where there exists plurality and

heterogeneity of actors and these actors display the consent and the will of the people.

The involvement of public in the pluralistic theory helps in reappropriation of the public,

to make a change by getting involved. “Legitimacy is defined as the consent by, and

accountability to, the national citizenry”.40 The consent of the people displays the public

power. In order to attain consent of the masses the IOs need to ensure that participation is

done strategically.

Legitimacy of International Organizations:

The ability of the developmental policies (made by these organizations) to affect the local

lives makes it mandatory to question such policies. This would require these

organizations to be considered legitimate. By legitimate, it would mean that these in their

policies. Therefore, while considering the legitimacy of these organizations, due

consideration needs to be given to the people who get affected by it.

Zürn proposes two aspects of Legitimacy- Normative and Descriptive Legitimacy.41

Here, the Normative Aspect highlights the societal acceptance of the political orders. The

‘public will’ determines the legitimacy of the political institution. The IOs have been

established for a specific purpose; these purposes should keep in mind the ‘public’ and

39 Andrew Vincent, Theories of the State, Oxford, 1987, p.218. 40 Susan Marks, ‘Democracy and International Governance’ in Couicad and Heisknen., eds., The Legitimacy of International Organizations, Tokyo, 2001, p.50 41 Michael Zürn, ‘Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems’, Government and Opposition, 2004, p.

- 12 -

their wants. Buchanan and Keohane, while addressing the issue of legitimacy take a very

moralistic view and stress on the need for global governance institutions to morally

justify their rules. This is done, in order to secure compliance with the people and make

them obey these rules.42 The issue of legitimacy needs to facilitate an environment

conducive for the people to be able to affect the decisions that are made for them; this

would require a certain amount of inclusiveness, in order to ensure internalization of the

local needs at the global level. 43 This calls for a scenario where various actors can be

included in the way the organization functions. Held proposes Principles of inclusion and

subsidiary as means for facilitating global democracy. The Principle of inclusiveness and subsidiarity is often regarded in democratic theory as a helpful means to clarify the fundamental criterion for drawing proper boundaries around those who should be involved in particular decisions domain, those who should be accountable to a particular group of people, and why. At its simplest, it states that those significantly (i.e., nontrivially) affected by public decisions or issues or processes should, certeris paribus, have an equal opportunity, directly or indirectly through elected delegates or representatives, to influence and shape them. Those affected by public decisions ought to have a say in their issuses or processes should, certeris paribus, have an equal opportunity making44.

Held argues that decision-making needs to be decentralized in order to ensure

inclusiveness of various actors. Such inclusiveness would help people to maximize their

opportunities for influencing social conditions and help to shape their lives. On the

contrary, Held argues that there is a need to centralize the political head; while referring

to the global scenario it would signify these organizations.

Thus, political entity needs to retain some authority of its own and ensures that the

decentralized setup should not take over. “Democratization process can not be imposed

from above (and a fortiori can not be coercively imported), it has to grow out of the

Lebenswelt (lifeworld) – it has to empower individuals within traditions, not against

them”.45 This calls for a multi-level democratic setup, which would facilitate

42 Allen Buchanan and Robert.O. Keohane, ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’, Ethics and International Affair, vol. 20, no. 4, p.419. 43 David Held, ‘Democratizing Accountability and Political Effectiveness from a Cosmopolitan Perspective’, Government and Opposition Ltd, 2004, p. 375. 44Ibid., p. 373. 45 Raffaele Marchetti, Global Democracy: For and Against, London, 2008, p. 102.

- 13 -

representation at all levels. On the other hand, the democratic setup needs to ensure that

there exists a authority which is placed at the centre.

Critiques have been skeptical about the representation of countries in these IOs. The way

these organizations are established makes them work like clubs, where only a few

dominate the decision-making.46 The representation in these organizations has been

skewed towards the developed countries because of their share in the organizations. The

paper specifically looks at the principle of inclusiveness of the actors in the process of

global governance. Thus, this calls for a synergy between the various actors to check the

tyrannical use of positions; of not only the developed nations, but also the member

countries. Such synergy can be established through a democratic position, which would

provide inputs in the working of these organizations.

Raffaele Marchetti argues that such inputs –oriented process is supposed to generate

information about the working of the entity making and higher solidarity among the way

the institution works.47 Eschewing participation while framing decisions in these

organizations have makes the people skeptical about the way the IOs work. James

Bohman proposes ‘Associative Democracy’48, as a way of enhancing deliberation and

accountability in the nation-state. Applying the model of associative democracy to the

functioning of these organizations, it can help facilitate situations that help build up

networks, which provides space for various actors. Moreover these associations would

help the people/masses take control over decision-making, which would further generate

‘acceptability’ amongst masses. Bohman argues such associations would require an

institution that generates public freedom, as a mechanism of control.

These associations would help in internalizing the wants and needs of various actors,

which would further legitimize the organization’s existence. “The operative process in 46 Robert. O . Keohane and Joseph. S. Nye, ‘The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and the World Trade Organizations: problems of Democratic Legitimacy’, John.F. Kennedy School of Government Vision of Governance in the 21st Century, Working Paper Series, no.4, 2001, p.2. 47 Op. Cit., 48 James Bohman, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions’. International Affairs, vol. 75, no. 3, 1999, p. 501. Associative democracy means a dense network and associations of public sphere which promotes conditions for cosmopolitan deliberations.

- 14 -

legitimization is the internalization by the actors of an external standard”.49

Internalization is a process where the actor’s (stakeholders) ideas and interests are taken

into cognizance by the outsiders and given due consideration while framing policies.

Such internalizations help in reflecting the need of the people.

The concept of ‘legitimacy’ revolves around the need to generate acceptance by the

masses. The paper argues that in order to be considered legitimate these IOs would

require model that is participatory in nature in order to overcome democratic deficit. At

the global arena where there are various levels, inducing participation would require a

systematic approach and at different levels. Thus the above discussions directs towards

the various aspects/standards of legitimacy:

Standards of Legitimacy50:

There are various perspectives that have been adopted by scholars to determine the

legitimacy of international organization. Some may argue that the objective of setting up

an organization helps determine its legitimacy, while others may argue that an apt

procedure adopted by these IO legitimizes their status. Fritz Scharpf raises the issues of

legitimacy of these organizations on the basis of- Input Legitimacy, Output Legitimacy

and Procedural Fairness.51 Where Input Legitimacy reflects the will of the people, i.e. the

government is ‘of the people’. The will represents the aspiration of the people. Procedural

Fairness stresses on the openness and transparency of the negotiation process and the way

the decisions are made. The last, i.e. the output legitimacy, according to Scharpf stands

for a government which is ‘for the people’. Here, those policies that reflect the welfare of

the people are considered to be legitimate. Thus assessing the legitimacy would require

standards that are at various levels. Drawing upon various studies, the paper argues that

legitimacy can be determined at two levels:

49 Ian Hurd, ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, vol. 53, no. 2, Spring 1999, p. 387. 50 Many consider that the output of these organizations help determine their legitimacy. On the other hand, the paper does not focus on the output standards, as the normative and the procedural aspects of legitimacy have an important influence on the output. 51 John Glenn, “Global Governance and the Democratic Deficit: stifling the voice of the south”, Third World Quarterly, vol.29, no.2, 2008, p. 218.

- 15 -

Normative Standard of Legitimacy: The normative standard of legitimacy

refers to the way the decisions and norms are formed in these organizations. The

study argues for inducing a participatory mode a various levels- international,

national and local, while making decision. This would require proper coordination

amongst the all three levels. Then only the inclusion of various actors will be able

to present the local interest and wants. Such decision-making which facilitates a

local need and aspirations requires being transnational in nature, which raise

concerns over international, regional, inter-governmental associations to be under

democratic concerns. The legitimacy crisis has cropped up because of removal of

numerous decisions which need to be made by the national actors at the global

level; this has raised normative problem.52 This requires decision-making (within

any global or any trans- boundary impact undertaken by any international,

regional, inter-governmental associations and experts) to be brought under the

purview of democratic concerns.53 Thus, making it imperative to discard a

technocratic attitude and internalize the needs of the people. Calling world politics

as a form of ‘executive multilateralism’, Zürn argues that there arises a need to

add a descriptive perspective to the issue of legitimacy i.e. societal acceptance

should be a criterion of determining normative legitimacy, in order to deal with

executive multilateralism. Executive Multilateralism at the normative levels has

resulted in resistances by many which he calls reflexive denationalization.54 These

resistances are instances that question the legitimacy of the decisions made by

these organizations. Examples of the approaches adopted by IMF / WB with then

notion that ‘One Size Fits All’ lead to disastrous outcomes.

Engaging a diverse range of actors in the decision making process as suggested by

cosmopolitan democracy would require a proper channel. The diversity in actors

can cause multiplicity of interests, which can result in tensions. In order to deal

52 Michael Zürn, ‘Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems’, Government and Opposition, 2004, p. 260. Executive Multilateralism refers the lack of identifiable decision makers at the multilevel institutions who are not directly accountable. 53 Susan Marks, ‘Democracy and International Governance’, in Couicad and Heiskanan, eds., The Legitimacy of International Organizations, Tokyo , p.50. 54Op. Cit., pp. 277-8.

- 16 -

with multiplicity of interests, a consultative approach needs to be adopted.

Adopting such policies might help in mobilizing “popular” stakeholder in

promoting the policies of organization. Such consultative approach might

establish a direct and formal relationship between the organization and the

stakeholders, thus bringing a legitimate decision-making process.55 Stone

advocates that such consultative approach would facilitate transnational advocacy

networks which would further integrate the grass- root traditional and non-

scientific knowledge, which is generally ignored by these IO’s.56 Stiglitz has

always criticized the technocratic attitudes adopted by these IO’s. Such attitudes

can be tackled by adopting a consultative approach at the normative level.

• Procedural Fairness: Thomas Francks defines legitimacy as “a property of a rule

or rule-making institutions which itself exerts a pull towards compliance on those

addressed normatively because those addressed believe that the rule or institution

has come into being and operates in accordance with generally accepted

principles of right process”.57 Attaining compliance of the people just does not

confine to the normative beliefs of the institutions, the right procedures adopted

by the institutions too acts as a mechanism of building ‘faith’ in the institution.

These institutions have been embedded with the ideology of ‘technocracy’; the

technocratic attitude was facilitated by the bureaucratic structure in these

organizations. Keynes had a lot of faith in technocracy and envisaged the Bretton

Woods as virtual technocratic priesthood.58 “Such bureaucratic characteristics

impaired their legitimacy”.59 The bureaucratic order made these IOs secretive and

decision were taken without the knowledge of the masses. The procedure adopted

i.e. the way these IO worked, made them unaccountable. Thus, there is a need for

55 Couicad and Heiskenen (Eds), “The Legitimacy of International Organizations”, United Nations University Press, 2001, p 10. 56 Diane Stone, ‘Introduction: Global Knowledge and Advocacy Networks’, Global Networks, vol. 2, no. 1, 2002, p. 4. 57Margaret P. Karns and Karen. A. Mingst, International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, New Delhi, p. 31. 58 Bruce Rich, Mortgaging the Earth, Boston, 1994, p. 63. 59 Martin Widèn, ‘In Search of Legitimacy: The IMF, World Bank and WTO’, Spring 2006, IR, p. 30. available on http://hdl.handle.net/2043/4318

- 17 -

enhancing the procedure of these IOs. Scharpf calls procedural legitimacy to be

transparent and open. The following are the criteria for procedural legitimacy:

a. Accountability

b. Transparency/ Openness

c. Monitoring/evaluation

• Accountability: The issue of legitimacy addresses to the question of

‘rights’ and ‘responsibility’ of the political entity.60 The responsibility

of the entity can only be checked by making the entity accountable.

“But to vest institutions with unprecedented financial and political

power without corresponding accountability to those who are affected

by their decisions are a dangerous path indeed, and technical reasons

cannot legitimize power-it only rationalizes and magnifies the

consequences of its exercise”.61 Thus, accountability is needed to

ensure that these institutions act responsibly while performing their

task. For some, the legitimacy of the IOs arises with what they do and

how they do it.62 These IOs have been primarily accountable to their

member-state, but the argument is that these have been insufficient in

guaranteeing accountability to the stake-holders. These stakeholders

are often located in the developing countries and these countries lack

the influence in the decision-making.63 This call for an arrangement

that ensures checks and balances in the way these organizations work.

In a democratic setup, accountability is achieved through public

participation which ensures medium of checks and balances for a

democratic setup.64 The democratic setup would facilitate engagement

60 Jean- Marc Couicad, Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility , Cambridge, 2002, p. 35. 61 Bruce Rich, Mortgaging the Earth, Boston, 1994, p. 64. 62 Jean- Marc Coicaud and Luiz A. Pereira Da Silva, ‘ The legitimacy of international organizations and the future of global governance’, in Underhill and Zhang eds., International Financial Governance under Stress: Global Structures versus National Imperatives, Cambridge,2003, p. 305. 63 Martin Widèn, ‘In Search of Legitimacy: The IMF, World Bank and WTO’, Spring 2006, IR, p 30 available on http://hdl.handle.net/2043/4318 64 Ngaire Woods, ‘Accountability in Global Governance’, Human Development Report, 2002, p. 22.

- 18 -

of various actors and partnerships, which would ensure that these

organizations are answerable for every action, which they take.

• Transparency/ Openness: Transparency refers to a system that

ensures that the people are well informed about all the proceedings

that take place in the institution. Transparency would refer to the

recording, reporting and publishing information about the processes,

decisions and outcomes of an institution.65 Transparency not only

signifies the need to keep the stakeholders updates, by making sure

that the information is made available to the people. The lack of

transparency in the way the decisions are made – curbs the ‘rights’ of

the people. The stakeholders are not aware of the choices of that are

available to them and this limits their rights.66 The other aspect of

acquiring a transparent system would mean that it will contribute to

external scrutiny. Transparency serves to promote a more open

atmosphere which in the long term contributes to accountability and

also helps the stakeholders to influence decisions”.67 Making these

organizations transparent is a way of ensuring that the people are

(directly/indirectly) included in the way these organizations work.

Providing the information to various actors; is a way of engaging

various actors in the way the organization functions. These indirect

engagements would help overcoming democratic deficit prevailing in

this organization and enhance its legitimacy.

• Monitoring and Evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation are

important elements to hold an organization accountable. These

elements do not only help in assessing the working of the

organizations, but also determines their effectiveness. Timely

65 Ibid., p. 17. 66 Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontent, London, p. 88. 67 Martin Widèn, ‘In Search of Legitimacy: The IMF, World Bank and WTO’, Spring 2006, IR, p. 29. available on http://hdl.handle.net/2043/4318

- 19 -

monitoring and evaluation helps in determining the lacunae prevailing

in the organizations. The outside assessments help provide a snapshot

of institutions.68 There is a need for independent evaluation for

assessing the performance of international economic institutions.69

These organizations have been already been pressurized by many

actors and NGOs to evaluate and monitor they work. Timely

monitoring and evaluation keeps a check on the way these

organizations work. Apart from internal monitoring, there arises a

need to engage various external actors and the reports and documents

need to be made available to the public, in order to indirectly engage

them.

IV

Conclusion:

The influence of the global governance institutions and the potential outreach of their

policies raise concerns over the type of policies made by them. The issue for global

democracy has gained prominence because the process of globalization has been

dominated by few players. This has resulted in the ignorance of taking into cognizance

the wants of local communities. Neglecting these communities has lead to resistances,

which have questioned the legitimacy of these organizations. The unfavorable outcome

of the policies made by these organizations is a consequence of democratic deficits

prevailing in these organizations. Democratic deficits in these organizations have limited

the representation of the people in these organizations. Many scholars have argued that it

is because of the prevailing democratic deficits in these organizations that their

legitimacy has come under attack.

In order to address the issue of legitimacy, the paper proposes that participation needs to

be induced in these organizations at various levels. Participation needs to be such that it

should try and represent the heterogeneity prevailing in the global arena. Engaging a

68 Op. Cit., p. 18. 69 Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, London, 2006, p. 282.

- 20 -

variety of actors at various level- global, national and local levels is a way of ensuring a

democratic structure. A democratic structure requires proper coordination amongst the

three levels, as the effect or problem in any level will have to an impact in the other level.

The claims that participation can ascertain the legitimacy of IOs can only be held true, if

participation is able to reflect the local needs and wants.

Just like the global governance institutions have an impact on the local communities,

similarly the local communities and their politics influence the global governance

institutions.70 The politics of the local and the national areas too influence the way these

organizations work. Thus, there is a deep linkage in the way the process of global

governance works. These links makes it mandatory to focus on these networks, while

addressing the issue of legitimacy, as any discrepancy at any level would influence the

legitimacy of these institutions.

Addressing the issue of legitimacy by looking at democratic deficit is just not enough.

There is a need to look at the democratic deficit at the national and the local levels too.71

The paper could not address to democratic deficit at these levels, but the close linkages of

these levels make it imperative to study democratic deficit in these organizations. Limited

participation at these levels will certainly lay an impact at the global level. The

participation needs to represent heterogeneity in the global structure, with a view to

overcome the issue of conflicting interests.

Analysis of the concept of legitimacy of any entity establishes the basis of legitimacy

being deeply embedded in the consent of the people. In case of international

70 These revelations are the outcome of the field visits conducted by the researcher. The researcher in order to assess the impact of participation on the legitimacy of the World Bank studied the implementation of a (World Bank aided) project- ‘Decentralized Watershed Development Project’ in Uttarakhand, India. The researcher conducted field visits at three levels: World Bank Head Quarters at New Delhi, Watershed Management Directorate (WMD) which was the implementing agencies and the two villages at Chenyalisaur and Vikasnagar Districts, where the project was being implemented. The researcher found out that in Sarp village, Chenyalisaur District the project did not start because of the rivalry amongst the two dominant political parties. Apart from conflict of interests, the change in the head of the village (Sarpanch) at Kawagarhi village in Chenyalsaur district, a change in the way the funds was seen. Due to constraints, the paper is unable to utilize the empirical evidences from the field survey. 71 I would like to thank Priya Sangameshwaram for raising this point.

- 21 -

organizations, there prevail ambiguities in order to assess who all would fall under their

domain. These organizations need to look at the people who get affected by their policies.

As the national governments along with these organizations undertake many development

projects, which gets implemented at the local levels. Thus, the inclusion of these local

communities is essential, as ultimately they have to bear the consequences of the policies

made by these organizations. So, the issue of legitimacy needs take into cognizance their

perspectives. Therefore, one can conclude that participation does influence the legitimacy

of international organizations.