Conflict and Commonality Between Multilateralism and Democracy

Cultural, Economics, FREEPOM, Geopolitical, Premium POM

By JC Collins

With the increasing socioeconomic tension in the United States, it is reasonable to expect that the population could begin to see the scaling back of police state methodology and the beginnings of a more democratic process which reflects the growing demand for fair and equitable representation.

Whether its protests and rioting against the abuse of power by police, or legislative bills demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve, the pattern of reversal is beginning to take shape.  Some assumption can be made and discussed regarding the rise of multilateralism and the effects of a waning unipolar American world.

History is littered with the remains of previous world powers, and their last attempts at hanging on to that power has made for a deep cultural deposit of material which has been used for everything from history lessons, to literature, and big screen epics.

With this transfer of power we are unable to completely define the negative aspects of the outgoing structure.  Though the US was the tip of the spear for the projection of power, the influence and leverage behind it have been more interwoven within the socioeconomic fabric of western cultural as a whole, whether its America, Canada, Europe, or proxy regions around the world.  As such, when the multilateral integration reaches a critical point of mass transition and intersection, the degradation and humiliation of western culture will reverse and the people will seek out an identity based on the principles of morality and vigilance which brought it to greatness hundreds of years ago.

The challenge presented to the people and their representatives will be in establishing a multilateral check and balance mechanism.  It is my contention that this process is further along than many would suspect, which is visible within the dialectic paradigm developing in American politics between predetermined governance platforms and campaigns.

It is interesting that politicians, like religious leaders, will invariably adapt and adjust to the changing mandates of a fluctuating cultural, and the demands made upon that culture by banking and business interests.  We can expect to witness, and in fact have already been witnessing, some of these external and multilateral demands.

Like all things in life, there are conflicts and commonalities between the emerging multilateral and the domestic sovereign demands made, both on and by, the governing structure of each region and country.  The assumption is repeated ad nauseam that international organizations and institutions undermine domestic democracy.  Though this may be true in some instances, it is not in all.  Where conflicts now exist, there may be commonalities in the near future. And where commonalities now exist, there may be conflict in the future.  Such is the motion and direction of the waters of history.

The Cultural and Socioeconomic Interception (CSI) methodology which has been used throughout human development is sometimes the product of covert and intentional manipulation of mass populations, but can also be the response to subconscious and unintentional manifestation of direction and desire, force and form, of the moral and intellectual collective. This manifestation can take the shape of a response to other intentional and unintentional CSI programs.

The world we live in is a product of both conscious/intentional CSI outcomes and subconscious/unintentional outcomes, with the interaction of responses from one to the other overlapping and at times superseding each other.

The constant struggle between both is visible in the alternate and various interpretations of the small rent seeking elite and the large disorganized masses.  In the case of a transition from the existing unipolar power structure to a shared multilateral structure, we find that the pro and con interpretations are widely dispersed amongst both groups.   There are some within the small rent seeking elite who represent the existing power structure and are leveraging business and industry in their attempts to maintain the status quo.  This is off-set by those in the small rent seeking elite who wish to transition the world towards the multilateral framework.

This division of conscious and subconscious intent is equally distributed throughout the large disorganized masses as there are those who support a multilateral architecture and those who support the continuation of the domestic sovereignty which has defined the unipolar world.

Equally so, there are those within all demographics who see both positive and negative characteristics in all directions.  The position which I analyze and think from would fall into this category, as I do not see the world in black and white paradigms, but in the mishmash and push and pull efforts of all groups, with a special focus on the pressure faults which exist between both small and large groups.

In the spirit of that preamble, I would like to present the following material for effective and purposeful, along with meaningful, debate amongst those who have something of value to contribute in developing a broader awareness of the challenges facing the world today.

Let’s begin with the assumption that multilateral institutions, represented by the mandates of global governance, act as distant, elitist, and technocratic methods of controlling and conditioning mass populations who are collected under the ideological banner of democracy, or variations of the democratic ideal, which other forms of governance are now morphing into, such as China-lite communism, and European Union adapted socialism.

Based on our defined characteristics of interwoven dependence and interpretation, we find that there are some probable fallacies involved with the above assumption.

First is the assumption that democracy can only exist when there is unfettered legal sovereignty as a necessary prerequisite. On the surface this may seem reasonable, but when we consider the actual methodology of the multilateral architecture, and the commonality of international goals and objectives, such as the environmental issues facing China and the world’s oceans, or the stability and sustainability of macroeconomic liquidity, the refusal of one specific country to delegate some of its domestic authority to multilateral institutions could represent a self-defeating restriction and arbitrary reduction in the national democratic deliberation process.  A pooling and delegating of sovereign governance could in fact broaden and strengthen the democratic process domestically.

Second is the assumption that the existing domestic institutions will always adhere and promote the common good and aspire to maintain high democratic standards.  This is obviously not the case and in fact the absence of a supra-sovereign delegation on some domestic matters could in fact reduce the democratic process.

Third is the assumption that advanced pooling (consolidating) and delegating of sovereignty to multilateral institutions will reduce the participation within the democratic process domestically.  There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, as the absence of a supra-sovereign delegation in years past has still lead to a reduction in democratic participation domestically.

This leads us into the first positive assumption which states that multilateral institutions and supra-sovereign delegation could in enhance the democratic process domestically.  Some of the benefits could look like the following:

  1. Limit the power and influence of domestic special interest groups, such as national rent seeking alliances.
  2. Protecting individual rights through the macroprudential mandates and legislation enforcing limits on rent seeking practices and the modernization and infrastructure development of third world countries.
  3. Improve the quality and frequency of domestic democratic deliberation.
  4. Off-setting regional and transnational business and industrial factions.
  5. Protection of minority rights.

It is possible for multilateralism to have net democratic benefits for sovereign governments who choose to interact within a defined set of important democratic standards.  The supra-sovereign democratic standards need to be determined and promoted by the domestic sovereignty of existing frameworks.  The conscious intent should be to facilitate the reform of the international and multilateral institutions through a process similar to what we have described here.

It is with great interest, and for the purpose of healthy and constructive debate, that I draw attention to the fact that the largest abuser of domestic sovereign rights and governance, of its own people and the people of other regions, is the last holdout on the reform of multilateral institutions.  While America promotes the ideals of domestic democracy, it defiles the very nature and intent of democracy itself.

It would appear democracy and multilateralism are combined through both a subconscious/unintentional and conscious/intentional CSI methodology which is attempting to bring a supra-sovereign form of democracy to an increasingly interconnected world.  – JC