Having the two parallel approaches of multistakeholderism and multilateralism cannot produce optimum results, the need is to holistically combine both
This article is part of the series Colaba Edit 2021.
An unexpected fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic was the exposure of the serious faultlines in global governance, particularly in times of crisis. There was legitimate criticism of the failures on the part of the United Nations (UN) and its specialised health agency, the World Health Organization, in assessing the dangers of the pandemic and in taking timely remedial measures. The pandemic brought the question of reforming multilateral institutions into sharper focus once again.
In recent times, two terms have dominated the discourse on global governance: multilateralism and mutistakeholderism. Both appear to have the same objective—making global governance more representative, equitable and accountable.
Multilateralism has been the hallmark of international interactions since the end of the Second World War and is a process that has been led by the UN. In the 70-plus years of its existence, the UN has had many achievements to its credit in the areas of preventing and managing conflicts, maintaining peace, taking initiatives on socioeconomic development, and coping with advances in technology and complex geopolitical and geoeconomic situations. Some of the UN’s specialised agencies have done exemplary work in their respective fields. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that UN has failed to evolve with the changing geopolitical and geoeconomic realities and many of its structures and procedures have become outdated. An overhaul of the organisation is long overdue.
For such an overhaul, it is necessary to look at the basis of today’s multilateralism. Is it genuine, equitable, representative, democratic, and accountable? In an ideal multilateral system, the rules and procedures should be hard-wired in favour of the weak and the strong should be incentivised to work towards empowering the weak. The world, unfortunately, is not an ideal place, explaining why the flaws in the system exist. But should these flaws be allowed to perpetrate further or is it time to reform the system?
This is where ‘reformed multilateralism’ gains significance. The term was first articulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018 in his address at the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, and reiterated at the G-20 Summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, later that year. Since then, India has repeatedly taken up this idea at all international fora. But what exactly is reformed multilateralism? It is a newer, more equitable, more representative, and more accountable system that is genuinely democratic, and where every member, big or small, rich or poor, powerful or weak, has the same benefits and obligations. While it is true that Westphalian states and great power rivalries are here to stay for the foreseeable future, a reformed multilateral system could soften the adverse fallouts from the harsh realities.
In an ideal multilateral system, the rules and procedures should be hard-wired in favour of the weak and the strong should be incentivised to work towards empowering the weak.
A reformed multilateralism brings into focus the functioning of the UN, the premier global multilateral institution. Two of its most important organs, the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the UN General Assembly (UNGA), are the most crucial global multilateral fora. Reforming these organs and others like the UN Economic and Social Council has been the subject of debates for over three decades, with no progress. The UNSC, established in the aftermath of the Second World War, had a certain logic in those circumstances. In the past 70 years, the global scenario has changed drastically with newer and more complex issues. The UNSC structure with the five permanent veto-holding members has become anachronistic. Today, there are new emergent countries that are capable—and ready—to play responsible global roles. Keeping them out and not increasing the representation of developing countries in the UNSC seriously erodes the legitimacy of the institution. Even Henry Kissinger, a die-hard proponent of realpolitik, argues in his book World Order that, to be relevant, any institution must satisfy two conditions—efficiency and legitimacy. Without the former, the institution becomes powerless, and without the latter, it unravels sooner or later.
UNGA Resolution 75/1 calls for “reforms of the principal organs of the UN and instilling new life in the discussions on reform of the UN Security Council and continuing the work to revitalize the General assembly and strengthen the Economic and Social Council with a view to making them more representative, effective and efficient and to increase the representation of the developing countries”. Despite such good intentions, reform of the UNSC is likely to take more time. Hence, efforts should be made to make the UNGA more powerful. Today, even though it is the most legitimate multilateral forum, it is powerless in comparison to the UNSC. By giving more responsibility and executive powers to the UNGA, the UN could be made a truly multilateral forum where all countries participate in the decision-making process. This should not be seen as a competition for power between the UNGA and the UNSC, but as two complementary organs working together with full autonomy in their respective domains.
In the past 70 years, the global scenario has changed drastically with newer and more complex issues. The UNSC structure with the five permanent veto-holding members has become anachronistic.
The concept of multistakeholderism has evolved in the last two decades to fill the gaps created in the multilateral approach, which is confined to interactions among sovereign countries. The concept has gained increasing traction for several reasons—the rise of powerful entities within sovereign countries like states, provinces and cities; the growing importance of private enterprises; the role of civil societies, advocacy groups, think tanks and academics; and the impact of new technologies that affect large sections of the population.
Although the term multistakeholderism is too vague and general, it is still evolving. Harris Gleckman defines multistakeholderism as “a new emerging global governance system that seeks to bring together global actors that have a potential “stake” in an issue and ask them to collaboratively sort out a solution”. Hence, in multistakeholderism, “stakeholders” become the central actors along with sovereign states. The devil, however, is in the details. The first problem is to have a procedure to designate stakeholders. Are there universally accepted criteria for this? The second problem is the accountability of the stakeholders. How representative are they even in their limited fields? The third problem pertains to the treatment of the different stakeholders as equals. Is there a level playing field in this game?
In global governance areas such as the sustainable development goals (SDGs), climate change, and trade, policies should ideally be decided after extensive consultations. However, even with the best intentions, in many cases, the process leaves out the most crucial stakeholders at the grassroots level because they do not have the clout or the financial resources to participate in the seminars/conferences/workshops/consultations to make their voices heard. Of course, in many instances, they may be represented by some civil society or advocacy group, but this is not the same as hearing them speak for themselves. Further, over time, the agenda of the representing organization may diverge from that of those affected. These are questions that need to be constantly monitored for multistakeholderism to be credible and effective.
The deficiencies in the system notwithstanding, the importance of multistakeholderism in today’s complex and globalised world cannot be overstated. In the last two decades, the concept has become part of global governance, and there are an increasing number of standard-setting multistakeholder initiatives. Many elements of multistakeholderism are becoming the default mode for decision-making on complex subjects. The UN is adopting an increasing multistakeholder approach in dealing with SDGs and climate issues, and the UN Secretary General’s July 2019 Partnership Agreement with the corporate-dominated World Economic Forum for accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development is a good example of how the concept has become mainstream.
The deficiencies in the system notwithstanding, the importance of multistakeholderism in today’s complex and globalised world cannot be overstated.
Multistakeholderism has established itself as a well-recognised concept for finding solutions. To make it truly productive, grassroots participation must be ensured. Further, multistakeholderism should not be used only as a consultative mechanism but should be made a part of the decision-making process. Having the two parallel approaches of multistakeholderism and multilateralism cannot produce optimum results. The need is to move towards a holistic and hybrid version of ‘multistakeholder multilateralism’ where the two approaches merge seamlessly and operate simultaneously.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
H.H.S. Viswanathan was a Distinguished Fellow at ORF and a member of the Indian Foreign Service for 34 years. He has a long and diverse ...
Read More +
PREV
