In making the case for a “global parliament,” George Monibot concedes something that seems to undercut his entire argument:

Global democracy has a special problem – the scale on which it must operate. The bigger the electorate, the less democratic a parliamentary body will be. True democracy could exist only in the village, where representatives are subject to constant oversight by their electorate. But an imperfect system is better than no system at all. Even the most pig-headed Eurosceptics would have trouble arguing that the European Union would be better off without a parliament.

But if, by Monibot’s own admission, the size of the electorate is inversely proportional to how democratic a parliamentary body is, then it’s far from clear that “an imperfect system is better than no system at all.” In fact, I can imagine that it would be worse: what you might well end up with is a body that is undemocratic in substance but has all the prestige and perceived legitimacy of a “democratic” “global” body. It’s also worth pointing out that proponents of such schemes often envision their global government superceding in authority the regional, national, and local entities that actually are somewhat accountable to their subjects.

Clearly international law and cooperation are desirable. But I don’t see how the creation of a largely unaccountable world governmental body would be an effective means to this end. It’s puzzling how radicals like Monibot, who take the maximally suspicious and skeptical view of existing institutions (often justifiably so!) can simultaneously be so utopian about dreamed-up new ones.

(Link via Gaius.)