Global democracy is a cosmopolitan notion that, through new forms of cognition and cooperation, it is possible to overcome the constraints on political life created by power politics and thereby realize more democratic outcomes. It is, however, difficult to envisage how such a model might come about in practice. Even if a global democracy were to emerge, it would still need to deal with enormous inequalities between and within countries and the grave ecological problems that capitalist industrialization has produced (see, e.g., Held 1995).
Proponents of global democracy argue that individuals are the fundamental objects of concern and therefore deserve to take part in decisions that affect them directly. They also support a ‘stakeholder model’, whereby those individuals significantly affected by a decision should have an equal voice in the making of that decision. Nevertheless, such positions raise important issues about how to define the people and who should be allowed to participate in decision-making. Some scholars, notably Erman (2012), suggest that relational qualities like equality, autonomy and non-domination provide additional moral foundations—as distinct from, but complementary to, cosmopolitanism—for pursuing democracy beyond the nation state.
Attempts by illiberal leaders to undermine democratic institutions are a serious threat to global democracy. These efforts, responsible for a significant number of the declines in 2024 in the Democracy Index, are especially disturbing given that they can be seen as attempts to limit pluralism and the free and fair exercise of power (see, for example, Benin’s President Macky Sall’s use of the courts to keep his biggest political rival out of elections). As a result, many critics believe that global democracy should consider different ways to legitimate the exercise of power that do not simply rest on cosmopolitan arguments about democracy and justice.