Shifting Dimensions Of Global Governance
We are now living in the beginning of 21st century. Almost a century passed since the birth of global governance. As we trying to fight challenges and to adjust current form of GG for modern realms and built stable path to the future globalized world, we look back to the beginning and the middle of the last century comparing and analyzing how world order changes. To start let’s define what is GG first. Global governance is a system of institutions, principles and standards set for political and economic cooperation among transnational actors with possibility to negotiate and solve issues of global scale. Standard dimensions of global governance were formed in the middle of 20th century after the end of the World War II, as already mentioned. They are based on the network of formal IGOs and Westphalian System. But in the 21th century dimensions are changing as the world requires so. Formal international institutions with rigid systems and huge bureaucracies are becoming less popular. We can see the trend of more flexible forms of cooperation - fora, networks, “clubs”. States seek more flexible platforms with looser structures to organize interstate communication, such as G20, Arctic Council, Paris club, etc. Emerging institutions have ad-hoc format with voluntary support. They are less Westphalian because not only states, but also subnational and private actors participate. Current architecture is more pragmatic as it uses non-institutionalised mechanisms of global governance and network-based diplomacy. All in all we are on road of change. World, with increasing population - 7. 2 billion people (comparing to 3 billion people in the 1950s) and increasing demands, need more dynamic ways of cooperation.
In trade hegemonic power of US is shifting to China which became world’s second largest economy. Emerging countries Global Governance challenges with implications to Kazakhstan Kazakhstan regardless of its big territory is considered as a small state and developing country and of course suffers from global problems first. The already widely known problems of global governance are underrepresentation of emerging countries and obsolescence of IGOs. Let’s get a closer look. The majority of problems are related to international institutions because they are pillars of the global governance.
The main issues associated with them: Poor cross-sectoral cooperation. Each institution are dealing with its own sector - trade, security, culture, etc. But there are only few IGOs in charge of cross-sectoral issues. Consequently effectiveness dropped, since they could not manage the complexity and interconnectedness of the sectors. Low democracy and transparency. Formal institutions are only accountable to governments and not to people or parliamentary bodies. Therefore they have been facing a lot of criticism from civil societies, NGOs and other non-state actors. They are asking for the right to voice their opinion. Slow bureaucracy. Formal institutions have a whole huge system of bureaucracy and staff overage which is very slow in addressing problems emerging everyday. They have too rigid and stiff and ineffective decision-making system.
Whereas these particular problems can affect our country in their own way, even bigger problem, created by them, is appearing and threatening the position of Kazakhstan on global platform. Numerous problems in IGOs have led to the situation when their rules are barely respected and often violated. Therefore countries, especially powerful governments seek new ways of cooperation. And here the key question arises. In these newly formed clubs and coalitions who gets a seat and who is left behind? Who decides on membership and agenda? Of course powerful countries. In IGOs developing countries already got their right - “one state - one voice”, but with current tendency there is a danger that the existing global governance bodies will turn to dying behemoths that nobody uses. And small states like Kazakhstan will lose their already established positions.
The second challenge is power shifts in trade and security. In trade hegemony of US is shifting to China which became world’s second largest economy. Multilateral trade system is faltering, as China and UN started a trade war which is affecting other countries economies, especially developing countries such as Kazakhstan. WTO is an example of a failed institution with its unsuccessful Doha rounds negotiations and US leaving WTO until it improves itself. Disrespect to security institutions and peacekeeping measures can pose threat to small states’ security and territorial integrity. Such political deadlocks and tensions are hurting the overall perception of GG. People of Kazakhstan also may start having second thoughts on global governance, because of dissatisfaction with globalisation, and give up on it.
What should Kazakhstan know to shape its approach? In this situation what should Kazakhstan’s officials know about main proposals and ideas to reform global governance and overall climate circulating around GG?
First of all is a retreat in multilateralism and globalisation. Rise of populism in developed countries and rise of nationalism and protectionism. Tangible evidence of such tendencies are walls. Today there is approximately 77 walls in the world (comparing to 15 in 1980s). The most recent one is the two-metre high border that Lithuania started to build on its border with Russia earlier in 2019. Global governance officials hesitate over the choice of strategy. There is a potential way out - reforms of institutions. To rearrange them and to focus on flexibility and voluntary participation. The pitfall is that it risks overlooking the original problems of international or global collective action. Two proposals (by Augusto Lopez-Claros, Arthur Lyon Dahl, Maja Grof and Natalie Samarasinghe) presented at the New Shape Forum arranged by Global Challenges Foundation in 2018 in Stockholm describe the interesting reforms for global governance.
The first proposal suggests a revising of United Nations Charter, creating a new UN General Assembly that would be directly elected by popular vote, and accepting representatives of civil society in second chamber and forming a standing UN army. The second suggests that existing decision-making bodies in the UN system should be extended to include non-state stakeholders such as youth representatives, business and non-governmental organizations. Altogether these proposals sum up all main reformist ideas that Kazakhstan should be aware of.
