Advancing Democracy while retaining Absolutism at the top?

 Advancing Democracy while retaining Absolutism at the top?

 

 

Is it possible to simultaneously love two conflicting concepts, such as democracy and absolutism? Your immediate response would likely be "no." However, upon closer examination of the Security Council, the world's highest governing body, confusion may arise. Within the Security Council, how significant decisions are made, whether through democratic or autocratic means? But what exactly does an "autocratic process" entail? As commonly understood, autocracy refers to a form of governance where an individual possesses absolute control. You may disagree and argue that the Security Council does not operate as an authoritarian entity. It consists of fifteen members, five of whom hold permanent positions and ten who are non-permanent. A resolution can only be adopted if it garners unanimous agreement. Now, consider this: What if one of the five permanent members refuses to consent? In such a case, you would assert that the resolution would not be adopted. Does this align with the principles of democracy, where a single objection can impede a resolution supported by all other countries worldwide? Naturally, it does not represent a democratic process. Consequently, it becomes an authoritarian organization composed of and supported by the founding members of a democracy. It is intriguing that this institution, the highest decision-making body globally, operates under an autocratic structure, while its permanent members strive to promote democracy. It is a peculiar juxtaposition. This article delves into the current structure of the Security Council, and its shortcoming, and subsequently proposes potential reforms to its structure and functionality, as well as the challenges associated with these reforms.

The UN Security Council is comprised of five permanent members and ten non-permanent members, making it a permanent executive body. It is widely recognized that major international decisions require approval from the Security Council, especially from its permanent members known as the P5. Each permanent member possesses veto power, meaning that a resolution can only be passed if all permanent members agree. If any of the members disagree, the resolution cannot be approved. In contrast to democratic systems where decisions are typically made through majority voting, the Security Council operates differently. The absence of democracy stems from the fact that a single member's dissent can prevent the approval of a resolution, allowing for despotic behavior. In summary, the UN Security Council stands as the highest decision-making body worldwide, although its governance is undemocratic despite being supported by democratic nations.

 

The undemocratic structure of the UN Security Council prompts inquiries about democracy. Why isn't the highest decision-making organization governed by majority voting? If democracy is considered the best form of governance worldwide, why doesn't it prevail in the Security Council? Is democracy inadequate while realism remains the ideal? It could be argued that the Security Council is designed to preserve a balance of power among major world nations by granting veto power to the P5. However, this raises the question of whether democracy cannot also maintain such a balance. If the answer is 'Yes,' then why should democracy be embraced at the state level? If the answer is 'No,' then why hasn't it been adopted by the UN Security Council?

The undemocratic and inflexible system of governance within the Security Council causes delays in decision-making, grants unchecked authority to the P5 nations, who can exercise their veto power without any restraint and encourages the formation of blocs, wherein each P5 member aligns with their respective allies in the Council. Such undemocratic characteristics render the UN Security Council ineffective, as it primarily serves the interests of the P5. Urgent reforms are necessary to transform the Security Council into an efficient organization.

There are two possible avenues for implementing reforms in the UN Security Council. One approach involves expanding the permanent membership to include representatives from all regions, followed by decision-making based on majority voting. Additionally, the current non-permanent members would be included in decision-making alongside the P5, without any member possessing veto power. This would ensure that decisions are reached through majority consensus. However, there are certain obstacles to overcome in the process of restructuring the UN Security Council.

In order to bring about changes to the current setup of the Security Council, amendments to the UN charter are necessary, and these amendments require the approval of two-thirds of the member states through a voting process. It is important to note that these reforms need to be approved not only by UN members but also by the UN Security Council. The consent of all P5 members is required for the approval of such reforms from the Security Council, regardless of whether or not all members will agree. It is currently uncertain and unpredictable how all members will respond.

In conclusion, the existing setup of the UN Security Council gives rise to concerns regarding both democracy and its reputation. The non-democratic decision-making structure prompts questions about democratic principles, while the sluggish decision-making process and veto power mechanism cast doubt on its credibility. Consequently, it is imperative to urgently implement reforms to transform it into a globally effective organization.

 

Kamran Khan Advocate

Kamranlucky210@gmail.com