1
Has the War on Terror Undermined Global Democracy?
By Rodger A. Payne and Nayef H. Samhat
ISA, March 2005, Honolulu, HI
In March 2004, we published a book examining what we saw as the ongoing
democratization of global politics (Payne and Samhat, 2004). We studied a wide variety of
international regimes and institutions, including some pertaining to development, environment,
human rights, security, and trade, and found them to be far from democratic. However, we also
unearthed fairly strong evidence that so-called “discourse norms” are emerging in these regimes.
Specifically, we highlighted the ongoing development of institutional norms assuring the
participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in various aspects of regime practice,
as well as the development of transparency norms, which help make regime processes open to
external scrutiny. Relatively more inclusive and open institutions are more publicly accountable
and democratic than are exclusive and secretive institutions. By promoting meaningful dialogue
within international regimes and institutions, and by opening these entities to public scrutiny,
these norms are democratizing at least some aspects of global governance and helping to
overcome the so-called “deficit of democracy” that undermines the legitimacy of these regimes
and institutions. The book borrows an Habermasian “logic of argument” (Risse 2000) to suggest
that the burgeoning democratization of global politics potentially serves to reduce the importance
of coercive power and force in world politics. As institutions and regimes continue to become
more open and inclusive, something like democratic deliberation might well determine outcomes
in future global decision-making. Moreover, to the extent that these international institutions and
regimes achieve dialogical decision-making, and thereby attain a far greater measure of political
legitimacy, the regimes and institutions will more likely survive and thrive.
Page 1 of 34 
Convention