Despite some limited moves toward openness and accountability, suprastate policy formation in such bodies as the World Trade Organization remains fundamentally exclusive of individuals within states. This article critiques the "don't kill the goose" arguments commonly offered in defense of such exclusions. It highlights similarities between those arguments and past arguments for elitist forms of democracy, where strict limitations are advocated on the participation of non-elites in the name of allowing leaders to act most effectively in the broad public interest. Advocated here is movement toward a strongly empowered WTO parliamentary body that would be guided in practice by a principle of democratic symmetry, attempting to match input to the increasing impacts of WTO governance. A parliament with co-decision powers broadly similar to those of the European Parliament is offered as a long-term institutional ideal.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France by Jennifer Pitts
Jennifer Pitts asserts that imperialism was not essential to the liberal project, as is so often alleged by its critics, most recently and systematically by ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights by Carol C. Gould
Although the focus of "Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights" is practical, Gould does not shy away from hard theoretical questions, such as the relentless debate ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Internal
Editors' Note [Full Text]
Sometimes change is revolutionary, but more often it tends to be evolutionary. That is why many readers might not even notice that there are a ...