UN mechanisms: the elephant in the room

Democratization's pitfall - from Tocqueville to Rancière

Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people,” a group historically constituted by only a minority of the population (e.g., all free adult males or all sufficiently propertied adult males) but generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens. *Encyclopedia Brittanica

 

In his work, French sociologist Alexis De Taqueville discussed the system of governance called Democracy, focusing on the 'new' version at that time: the American Democracy. This was at the time shortly after the French Revolution.

De Taqueville saw that the idea of 'decentralization' of governance, and the system of the government in the US, minimizes the authority of a specific class or even a person. Hence in a country like the US, you would rarely see a revolution... people simply don't need to revolt.

However, he also highlighted the concept of 'Tryanny of the Majority' i.e. in a system of governance ruled by the majority rules, how shall the minority be represented?!

 

Now fast forward to Jacques Ranciere, also French "Car, Pourquoi Pas?! :)" who critiqued democracy as it is practiced... Briefly he saw that political forms calling themselves 'democracies' for mere banal symptoms like voting and decentralization of rule (Liberal institutions), are a joke. The Democratic ideal, he thought, is the radical principle of equality. In this he saw different other important concepts:

1. The fear of people: Elites distrust the 'common' or the public for they see them as irrational and unqualified or too focused on their personal gain
2. Critique the hegemony of the narrow concept of liberal democracy as the only or even the best version of democracy
3. Critique the post-democracy i.e stating that the problem is not too much democracy, but too little! and that it is evidential that the institutes claim democratic legitimacy while suppressing democratic action (in the Ranciere concept of democracy, which is highlighted above) 

 

The UN a.k.a the Big Boys Club

The idea that the UN mechanisms aims to sustain democracy and peace with the least harm possible (a.k.a don't experiment on hostages, and don't drop atomic bombs, and don't cut people's hands for punishment) might have sustained our world so far.

However, with the increase of the demand for more power, by more state bodies, and their habit to appease to the public (a.k.a Demagogy), politicians prove that not only they do not give two fucks about democracy as a radical idea, but also that they are eagerly deploying democracy in its liberal political form (a la Ranciere) to the servitude of that demagogy.

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal” is a famous quote by Emma Goldman, a Russian-born US political activist, anarchist and writer (1869-1940). 

An example of the current discourses around the deterioration and inefficiency of the UN mechanisms to sustain democracy or even peace and justice, us clear in something like the UPR.

One can see that through out the past UPR (Universal periodical reviews) - a teeny tiny space where States get to be reviewed as to what degree it adhere to human rights, based on the rivalry of its NGOs and its representatives. Other states provide recommendations, and the State of question can choose to Agree, refuse or agree with remarks on their 'commitment' to work on those recommendations). Such commitments should translate into laws, and measurements to ensure justice to all.

Through the past UPR, Egypt was recommended to respect LGBTIQ+ rights (too radical), Political Prisoners and prisoners of expression rights and release them, women's rights in public and private space...etc.

However, on the other hand, the very same states in this ugly party, like France, that has what appears to be more freedom 'score' in all of the above, has chosen to provide Egypt with artillery (namely war planes), without focusing or commenting on Egypt's commitment to human rights! France isn't the only global north state to do so as it will appear. More and more States (predominantly in the Global North) are turning a blind-eye on human rights, in clear arms and economics trades and agreements.

The questions this brief overview can stir are:

• Are the current UN advocacy mechanisms efficient to address and resolve the current problems world wide?
• If it is not, can we ease out of it and create branches out of it, or create alternatives, or do we have to radically revolutionize the whole institution?
• Is Ranciere's and Brittanica's concept of democracy, practically feasible? is it possible to achieve such a thing? or is it like Marx's concepts, ideals without the possibility of empirical evidence?
• What are the forms of solid strategies and tactics that movements in your context have been discussing in relation to the topic matter?