PRESENTATION of the book by Amitai Etzioni
UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS
SCHOOL OF LAW, ECONOMICS, AND POLITICAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Master’s Program: “European and International Studies”
COURSE: Theories of European Integration
PROFESSOR: M. Tsinisizelis
PRESENTATION
of the book by Amitai Etzioni
POLITICAL UNIFICATION
revisited
«On Building Supranational Communities»
Anna Karamanou
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
INTRODUCTION
TOWARD A NEW GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE
The author Amitai Etzioni, in the revised introduction (2001) of his book (first published in 1965), discusses the possibility of a new global architecture and a global governance. The author argues that what once was the vision of a few romantics can now be examined seriously. The reasons are many and are primarily linked to the new forms in which an age-old problem, that of alienation, is manifesting itself.
Today, people have unleashed technological and economic forces that often, instead of serving them, oppress them. The globalization of the economy and technology creates new threats. Weapons of mass destruction are bought and sold across borders. Tools of hatred that are prohibited in one country can easily be produced in another. Civil wars in one country provoke mass migration to another. Millions of women and children are trafficked daily for sexual and economic exploitation by internationally organized criminal networks. National governments are completely powerless to deal with nuclear accidents like the one in Chernobyl, which scattered radiation across their territories. A monetary collapse in Russia, Thailand, or Indochina disorganizes financial markets around the world. A computer virus in the Philippines causes global destruction. Multinational companies move capital and labor from one country to another, bypassing national policies.
Despite the fact that these problems vary greatly from one another, they have a common denominator: the national institutions that are supposed to express the popular will on these issues are unfortunately completely powerless to address them. Therefore, the question arises: how and by what means can we integrate international developments into our collective goals? It is reasonable, before we even think about establishing any institution that might resemble, even slightly, a government of global scope, to first examine what other possibilities are available.
THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Initially, we need to ask whether the current international problems that arise daily can be addressed by the old system of intergovernmental relations and by the international organizations run by national governments. A simple look at the problems shows that the old system is overloaded and entirely unsuitable for the ever-increasing volume of international activities and issues.
The main causes of the increasing inadequacy of the system are well known: it is too formal, rigid, and slow. Even when agreements are reached, they are often openly violated because the enforcement mechanisms either do not exist, or are too slow, rigid, and weak, with perhaps the only exception being trade, which, however, has different characteristics compared to other international issues.
GOVERNANCE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
In examining the possibilities for addressing international problems beyond the old system, but with fewer demands than a global government, attention has recently turned to “governance without government.” Specifically, non-state actors are being examined, such as international NGOs, which have grown significantly in recent years, as well as international networks. Sometimes the term “global civil society” is used to refer to the society promoted by these organizations, in complete contrast to the idea of a planetary state or government.
In some extreme versions, “governance without government” is linked to the old vision of abolishing all states and replacing them with communal bodies and systems. Most of the time, non-state actors are expected to specifically assist in solving international problems that the old system is unable to address. We are indeed in the midst of a global revolution of social organizations, which may prove to be as significant as the emergence of the nation-state in the 19th century. Salamon also writes that there is a “crisis of confidence in the state’s ability.” Therefore, major historical changes have paved the way for alternative institutions that will respond more effectively to contemporary needs.
The discussion now should shift to whether NGOs can bridge the gap. It is true that international NGOs are particularly effective at mobilizing and raising public awareness, acting as interest groups that pressure various international organizations and serve as a counterbalance to private interests, promoting international values and norms. However, it should be noted that these activities usually aim to mobilize states to promote measures and policies in neglected areas in order to take on the coordination of work, but not the entirety of the task. The typical goal of NGOs is national states (e.g., by pressuring them to ratify the landmine ban treaty) or international organizations (e.g., pressuring the World Health Organization to pay more attention to AIDS). But this is where the cycle ends. These are the old systems that are unable to address the growing international problems. Their criticism is helpful, but it cannot fill the void of a supranational authority and a welfare state.
International NGOs can be very effective in raising public awareness and changing outdated perceptions. However, their action is much more significant when it aims at creating institutions, passing laws, and mobilizing government actors, as was the case with movements for the environment, human rights, and gender equality. However, when there are no international institutions that can enforce the necessary laws, that is, when these movements try to work at the international level without the existence of an international government, their long-term effectiveness is very limited and tends to dissipate or revert back to the old overloaded system.
In conclusion, NGOs cannot replace the state but can only share some of the burdens. Volunteer firefighters are indeed valuable, but they cannot undertake the task of firefighting alone, without state resources and professional firefighters. The same is true at the international level: Doctors Without Borders do excellent work, but they cannot fill all the gaps. Furthermore, NGOs cannot perform those tasks that are at the core of state functions, such as issues of public order and law enforcement, combating criminal networks, prisons, courts, tax collection, etc.
In conclusion, social movements and non-governmental organizations can be important partners of the state, but they cannot replace it. Therefore, governing the planet without a government is not possible, as the essential partner, that is, the government, would be missing.
INTERNATIONAL NETWORKS
Another form of international governance being considered involves international networks in which experts, civil servants, and politicians from various countries participate. These networks can provide significant information, collaboration, and assistance on various issues, but so far, we have not seen them able to handle specific difficult issues on their own. Some academics envision stronger international networks to combat terrorism, promote public health, protect human rights, etc., but without a government, without an elected prime minister or president, without democratic oversight, and without an elected international parliament. (This view is sometimes referred to as “functional.”)
Because these international networks would consist of national organizations and networks of representatives from various national governments, they would face similar problems to those encountered by the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, and other international organizations.
SUPRANATIONALITY: SMALL STEPS TOWARD A NEW GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE
The discussion concerns exploring whether an intermediate level of supranationality can be effective and stable, taking into account the most advanced example, that of the European Union.
It is useful to look at the elements that characterize supranationality: One “supranational” element concerns decision-making by a body that is not composed of national representatives, has its own rules, policies, and values, and is not guided by governments. Another element is that the nations included in supranational unions, as well as their citizens and organizations, follow the rules and decisions of supranational bodies. Additionally, supranational bodies have some of their own enforcement mechanisms, such as the ability to impose fines on companies. This means they have greater powers than networks and NGOs. Supranationality obviously requires some concession of national sovereignty.
The Limitations of Supranational Institutions
At the International Criminal Court in The Hague, judges rule based on international law and without needing approval from specific nations. The Court has the authority to enforce penalties, including imprisonment for those convicted of crimes against humanity.
Some consider the World Trade Organization to be a supranational body, while others view it as partially supranational because it often operates like a traditional intergovernmental body. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is often described as an effective supranational body. The same applies to the International Chamber of Commerce. These organizations may indeed make significant contributions, but their actions are very limited. Furthermore, the issue of democratic legitimacy is very serious. One could, of course, view these organizations as building blocks for a new global architecture that would feature some form of democratic oversight, a global parliament, global public opinion, and international political parties and interest groups.
The necessary conditions for full supranationality and a stable union
- Legal control of enforcement mechanisms
- Distribution of resources among partners
- Loyalty that transcends that towards the partners
These three conditions are crucial and explain the limitations of international organizations. According to Etzioni’s analysis, full supranationality is not just about the transfer of sovereignty, but requires that the supranational level takes precedence over the national level, even in the case of disagreement. In short, this book suggests that the structure of a supranational union should be that of a federation. It also argues that the absence of the third condition contributed to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A EXAMPLE OF SEMI-SUPRANATIONALITY
The question posed by this book 40 years ago was whether semi-supranationality would be sufficient to address international problems and whether such a level of integration could be sustainable. Semi-supranationality is defined as when the participating states retain full autonomy on significant matters while granting full authority to the supranational body on other important issues as well. The findings of the book show that two of the four attempts to form supranational states, the United Arab Republic and the Federation of the West Indies, failed to develop any of the three capabilities necessary for a stable union, and thus collapsed. The third attempt, the Nordic Council, developed only limited unification capabilities, but survived mainly through the development of international activities and the high autonomy of the member states on almost all issues. The fourth and most important case for the topic under consideration was the European Coal and Steel Community, which preceded the EU. From the perspective of the hypothesis discussed by Etzioni, the European Union offers the best example of semi-supranationality. The EU seeks to integrate the economies of the various member states, but at least for the near future, they retain their political independence. If this semi-supranationality stabilizes, it might currently be preferable to the distant vision of a fully supranational EU.
However, the question that the EU is currently faced with is whether it is possible to nearly fully supranationalize several important areas (especially those related to the free movement of goods and services, capital, and employment) while simultaneously keeping political integration at a low level. (This issue was brought into the public debate by Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in the summer of 2000.) The reason why semi-supranationality, especially when high economic integration is combined with low political integration, cannot be sustainable, is that markets are not self-contained systems with their own distinct dynamics, but are closely connected to the politics and society of which they are an integral part. Markets cannot function without political institutions and social values. In free societies, major decisions regarding economic policy seriously consider the system of values and the consensuses that are formed; otherwise, the sense of alienation will increase, which will jeopardize the sustainability of the system.
Ultimately, Etzioni concludes that semi-supranationality cannot be sustainable, and that the EU must move either towards a high level of supranationality or revert to a lower level. And while it is true that regions cannot unify and stabilize without a high level of supranationality, the same may be true for efforts to create a global union. Keeping this conclusion in mind, and since the EU represents the most advanced attempt to create a true supranational community, the question arises: What needs to be done for the EU to move towards higher levels of supranationality and political integration? The main reasons for this delay are primarily due to the lack of a broad dialogue on the system of values.
DIALOGUE ABOUT VALUES
The dialogue about values is not an issue that concerns only logic, but also people of different origins who find common ground. Despite the fact that there have been exchanges of views between intellectuals and political elites regarding the need to create a European supranational community since the end of the Second World War, the general public has been excluded from this dialogue. As a result, there is no acceptance of a core set of common European values, nor is there a sense that the expansion of the role of political institutions would legitimize them democratically. One of the reasons for the rise of the far right in many European countries is that the pace of integration is faster than the public can assimilate.
The decisions of the European Court reflect both the limitations of European supranationalism and the lack of adequate and effective dialogue. The Court often makes social policy in cases where there is no community legislation, while national judges are increasingly taking into account the decisions of the European Court, which indeed functions as a supranational institution. However, it has very limited enforcement capacity for its decisions.
Etzioni, that is, while initially arguing that high levels of economic integration require high levels of political and cultural integration, later states that integration cannot be achieved solely through functionalism (although it may be a helpful factor), that unification is hindered by what is often called “decisions behind closed doors,” and that the only way to strengthen legitimacy in an era when the public cannot be excluded is through intensive and extensive dialogue. He adds that whatever the future may teach us about European integration, so far there is no model of successful semi-supranational integration in any other region.
THE PROBLEM OF SIZE
If there is one law for building a community, it is that the larger the number of members, especially when there is heterogeneity, the more difficult it is to unify any type of community, especially the political one. Moving from 15 to 27 nations is enough to shake the foundations of any developed supranational community and threaten its unity. Rapid expansion generally creates risks in building the community.
What applies to the EU applies to all regional unions. The promotion of dialogue on principles and values, as well as the small size in the initial stage, should be seriously considered.
SUPPORTING FACTORS
- The English language as de facto lingua franca (it is used by approximately 1.6 billion people, nearly one-third of the world’s population).
- The explosion of communication systems on a global scale.
- The significant development of international trade and tourism.
- The creation of globally influential television channels (CNN).
- The development of international NGOs and networks.
Although these factors are not enough to address international problems, they can facilitate the creation of global governance. Carefully designed institutions can also help prevent the tensions that arise from supranational governments. For example, the creation of two parliamentary levels can help give smaller countries more representation, protecting them from the tyranny of the majority, while at the same time protecting, at another level, large countries from the tyranny of minorities. The two parliamentary bodies (House and Senate) help overcome the fears generated by supranationalism.
Another source of satisfaction for global demands is provided by regional or global human rights declarations, which acquire some of the powers of constitutions. Also facilitating the transition to supranationality is the legal trick cleverly discovered by the EU, known as “mutual recognition.”
What facilitates Supranationality:
- The concept of subsidiarity
- Respect for different cultures (the preservation of languages is as important as the adoption of English as a second language).
- The combination of protecting national culture with openness to the world.
- The building of regional blocs (Latin America and North America, EU and the US in the form of a renewed Atlantic Alliance). This might facilitate the transition towards a world government.
Because for a long time the reference to a world government has provoked mocking comments from serious analysts, it would be useful to examine a fictional scenario of how the process of forming a world government could be accelerated. The scenario is based on what is universally accepted, that is, people tend to unite when facing a common enemy. Indeed, many related scenarios begin with a strange attack or a global threat from an asteroid or epidemic (these threats are the equivalent of war). Let us imagine that a nuclear war has broken out between India and Pakistan, costing the lives of 100 million people and turning Kashmir and the surrounding areas into a radioactive desert. Tensions between Israel and Iraq are escalating, and intelligence agencies report that these two countries are very close to using nuclear weapons that could also destroy the region’s oil fields. If such an event were to occur, world public opinion would pressure for nuclear disarmament and for UN intervention, and the Security Council might place the small nuclear powers under supervision. It is a fact that the critical nature of these circumstances requires immediate action and does not wait for consensus-building, social dialogue, or democratic decision-making beyond those directly connected to the emergency situation.
If such a world government proves effective in managing the crisis, it could gradually address other international problems, expanding its power as well as its democratic legitimacy. However, it is essential that initially it will have limited power and will be restricted to solving problems that are acceptable to most.
The scenario presupposes two conditions: The first concerns a specific plan for a world government that would be kept in a drawer and brought out once consensus is secured and the world is ready. Experience has shown that even when disasters occur, if no one has thought in advance how they might be dealt with, the results will be meager. The second condition concerns the assumption that dialogue has matured and a political culture has developed that favors a form of world governance. A small step in this direction could be made if it were generally accepted that the UN intervene in the internal affairs of states in cases of mass human rights violations. Indeed, if the design of a world government and the dialogue were promoted, such a government could be accepted simply with the expectation that it would prevent nuclear annihilation or any other catastrophe.
In conclusion, Ecioni argues that international problems are growing daily and their handling by the current policy of intergovernmental and international organizations is becoming increasingly ineffective. To better address these problems, there are three options: one is business as usual, semi-supranationality in regional bodies, or a tight world government and a global community with a high degree of decentralization. The endeavor is difficult, but such a design is necessary in case a major disaster or threat creates the political will for the formation of a world government.