Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:50:44.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transnational Relations as a Threat to the Democratic Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Karl Kaiser
Get access

Extract

Transnational relations and other multional process seriously threaten democratic control of foreign policy, particularly in advanced industrial societies. The intermeshing of decisionmaking across national frontiers and the growing multinationalization of formerly domestic issues are inherently incompatible with the traditional framework of democratic control. The threat is all the more serious because it is sustained not by enemies of democracy but unknowingly by people who consider themselves to be acting within Western democratic traditions and because it results in part from the very forces of internationalism, interdependence, and economic advancement that have come to be regarded as indispensable. The consequences of these developments and the ongoing erosion of control over military and foreign policy, dramatically demonstrated by the debate on the Vietnam War, amount to a fundamental challenge to the democratic structure of Western societies. This essay analyzes the threat of transnational relations by reexamining the arguments for limited democratic control of foreign policy in light of recent structural changes in world politics and the consequences of transnational relations for the democratic process and its institutions. It concludes by indicating some approaches that could strengthen the democratic dimension which is being eroded.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , Summer 1971 , pp. 706 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This is a revised and shortened version of my essay,“Das internationale System der Gegenwart als Faktor der Beeinträchtigung demokratischer Aussenpolitik,” which appeared in Politische Vierteljahresschrijt, 1970 (Special Issue No. 2), pp. 340–358.Google Scholar

2 The terms “legislature” and “executive” are used in this essay in full awareness that they are problematic. They are related to the doctrine of separation of powers which, as elaborated later, is less and less valid under modern conditions, particularly in Europe. Nor are the terms “parliament” and “government” quite satisfactory in an essay that deals with democratic systems in general since the former does not apply to the United States and the latter has a different meaning in American and English usage.

3 Lippmann, Walter, Public Opinion (New York: Free Press, 1966), p. 172Google Scholar.

4 SeeKaiser, Karl, “Transnationale Politik: Zu einer Theorie der multinationalen Politik,” Politische Vierteljahresschrijt, 1969 (Special Issue No. 1), pp. 80–110Google Scholar. A revised English version will appear in International Organization, Autumn 1971 (Vol. 25, No. 4), forthcomingGoogle Scholar.

5 The relevance of transnational relations to the United Kingdom and West Germany has been examined in my essay,“Interdependence and Autonomy: Britain and the Federal Republic in their Multinational Environment,” in Britain and Germany: Changing Societies and the Future of Foreign Policy, ed. Kaiser, Karl and Morgan, Roger (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 17–40Google Scholar.

6 Jahresbcricht der Bundcsregierung 1968 (Bonn: Deutscher Bundesverlag [for the Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung], 1969), pp. 92–126, 525–554.Google ScholarPubMed

7 On these questions see Vernon, Raymond, Multinational Enterprise and National Security (Adelphi Papers, No. 74) (London: Institute for Strategic Studies, 01 1971)Google Scholar.

8 Thus far attempts to strengthen the European Parliament, among them efforts to introduce direct election of European parliamentarians, have failed. Walter Hallstein's attempt to increase the parliament's budgetary prerogatives in 1965 resulted in the French boycott of the institution.

9 For this debate see Ellwein, Thomas, Einführung in die Regierungs- and Verwaltungslehre (Untersuchungen zum Regierungsprozess in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Vol. I) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1966)Google Scholar; Hennis, Wilhelm, “Aufgaben einer modernen Regierungslehre,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 12 1965 (Vol. 6, No. 4), pp. 422–441Google Scholar; Kewenig, Wilhelm, Staatsrcchtliche Probleme parlamentarischer Mitregierung am Beispiel der Arbeit der Bundestagsausschüsse (Aktuelles Recht, Vol 7) (Homburg: Verlag Gehlen, 1971)Google Scholar; Scheuner, Ulrich, “Der Bercich der Regierung,” in Rechtsprobleme in Stoat und Kirche: Festschrift fur Rudolf Smend (Göttinger Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien, Vol. 3) (Göttingen: Verlag Otto Schwartz & Co., 1952)Google Scholar; Scheuner, Ulrich, “Das parlamentarische Regierungssystem in der Bundesrepublik: Probleme und Entwicklungslinien,” in Strukfurwandel der modernen Regierung, ed. Stammen, Theo (Wege der Forschung, Vol. 119) (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlichc Buchgesellschaft, 1967), pp. 296–312Google Scholar; Sternberger, Dolf, “Parlamentarische Regierung und parlamentarische Kontrolle,” in Stammen, pp. 274–295Google Scholar; and Rausch, Heinz, ed., Zur heutigen Problematic der Gewaltentrennung (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1969), particularly the contributions by Werner Kägi and Winfried SteflaniGoogle Scholar.

10 For an informative survey of this debate see the section “Räte als politisches Ordnungsprinzip,” in Politische Vierteljahresschrijt, 1970 (Special Issue No. 2), pp. 53–152Google Scholar.

11 Etzioni, Amitai, The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes (New York: Free Press, 1968), p. 5.Google Scholar