Institutional Processes Toward Effective Global Governance
By Andy Tamas
The Baha’i International Community’s statement on the 75th anniversary of the United Nations begins by noting how evolving global realities are prompting a deeper appreciation of humanity’s interconnection and interdependence:
Amidst the disruption created and accelerated by a world-engulfing pandemic, numerous possibilities are opening for marked social change that can bring stability to the world and enrich the lives of its inhabitants. Throughout history, periods of turbulence have presented opportunities to redefine collective values and the assumptions that underlie them. So, too, does the present moment.
The document celebrates the institutional developments that took place in the aftermath of two world wars, highlights challenges and achievements of the past 75 years, and describes some of the work that lies ahead.
A core theme throughout the statement concerns recognition of the oneness of humankind, and the need to build a system of global governance rooted in this fact. This process can be seen as humanity’s movement along a continuum or trajectory—moving towards something, and, in a governance context, creating institutions to manage its influences, components, dynamics, and results. This article addresses some of the institutional development processes linked with the expression of the collective values associated with the recognition of humanity’s oneness.
The process of establishing effective global governance implies forming overarching institutional structures, much as in a federated nation-state where there are different levels of national and subnational institutions, each with their roles and authorities defined and agreed upon by its members. The formation of federations such as Germany, Spain, Canada, the US and others brought together previously relatively autonomous political and economic entities—regions, provinces, or states—whose peoples and leaders recognized that it was in their collective interest to come together into a higher-order union*. Acting in response to a variety of interests and concerns, each gave up some of their autonomy to unify and achieve greater collective benefits.
To establish effective global governance, a similar process is required at a global level, with each nation-state benefitting from vesting some authorities and autonomy in supranational entities. There already are some authoritative global institutions that reflect these principles, such as the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization, to which nation states subscribe because they see it in their interests to do so. Others, such as the International Criminal Court in the Hague, are not recognized as legitimate by several major nation states, presumably because their governments do not see it in their best interests to accept that authority over their citizens. This divergence of view contributes to what is described as the anarchy of state sovereignty—the inadequacy of existing institutional structures to lend order to the affairs of the community of nations.
Current conditions demand a far more holistic and coherent approach to governance. The process of the formation of the European Union is instructive in this regard, and some of its lessons could be applied to the global governance initiative. In the EU’s case, the process began shortly after the end of World War II with a desire by key leaders (and an exhausted citizenry) to move away from war and toward peace. Its genesis was the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, in which France and Germany established watchdog institutions to monitor each others’ mines and industries, as a precautionary measure against military build-up or acts of aggression. This early initiative broadened over subsequent decades to produce what is now the European Union—a supranational entity which coordinates and exercises authority over some of the activities of its member states—with the agreement of sufficient portions of its leaders and citizens. As is the case in federated nation-states, this overarching authority does not cover all sectors. In Canada, for example, provincial governments have retained jurisdiction over their education systems. EU member states have retained control over sectors such as domestic taxation and their militaries.
The EU’s origin in a watchdog institution based on mistrust contributes to what some see as an organization designed as much for control as for mutual benefit—factors that would need adjustment if the model were to be expanded to a global level. This highlights the significance of the foundational values and principles influencing the institutional development process. Institutions built on the recognition of the oneness of humanity, our interdependence, and need to collaborate are likely to have quite different organizational structures and processes than are evident in the EU.
What is important to note in this discussion is that the supranational governance and institution building process will be driven by participants’ perceptions of self-interest and their expectation of its ability to deliver results. And, as is evident to even the casual observer of developments such as Brexit, this process is far from linear; it is imperfect, sometimes controversial and experiences occasional reversals. What is also evident is that the values, motivations, and interests of key leaders and their populations are central to how the processes unfold. At some point—perhaps after yet another global crisis—the imperative necessity of convening a gathering of world leaders to deliberate and decide on the means to move the process forward will become evident.
The Baha’i International Community’s statement on the 75th anniversary of the UN focuses on the recognition of the oneness of humanity as a driving force that is pulling humanity toward establishment of an effective global governance system. It also makes note of several quite different factors, such as the pandemic and environmental concerns, as pressures that are pushing humanity toward that same objective. Both sets of forces are combining to move humanity along its trajectory, and clarifying the need for institutions to manage the process and its results. The extent to which these influences are strong enough to create the political will and moral and social pressure to move humanity past the tipping point, to actually build these institutions and invest them with the necessary authorities to advance the common good, will determine how quickly and smoothly the global governance development process will proceed.
*These unification processes had varying dynamics – the Civil War in the US is one example; the more peaceful formation of Canada is another – each with its own combination of harmony and conflict.
Dr. Andy Tamas is an international development advisor based near Ottawa. He specializes in strengthening governance in fragile conflict-affected states such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere.
Cover Image Credit: Lindsey Lugsch-Tehle