Having laid out the objectives in view and the issues at stake in building global democracy, it is necessary next to consider how to organize and enact the BGD programme in ways that effectively address the questions and further the objectives. Arguably the challenge of global democracy requires not only an innovative assessment of the problem (as set out above), but also a creative research method. The approach pursued in the BGD programme has three central pillars – diversity, praxis and reflexivity – which inform the execution of the five projects.
Regarding diversity, ‘the people’ who would exercise self-rule in global affairs exhibit wide varieties of cultural, economic, geographic, political and social attributes. Arguably, then, an investigation into building global democracy amongst these differences should itself incorporate and embrace these diversities. Most past research on global democracy has been single-authored or has involved a handful of researchers with very similar social profiles. In particular, culturally western and materially comfortable white male political theorists resident in the global north have dominated the field. Although this literature has yielded much insight and inspiration, its base within the full range of global relations is quite narrow and moreover concentrated in circles of greater power and privilege. A deeper global democracy that answers the aspirations of all is more likely to emerge from an interplay among diversities.
Thus diversity pervades the BGD programme. Everywhere the priority is on veritable openness and deep exchanges amongst constituencies that have so far rarely collaborated in discussions of global democracy. In this spirit the convening group covers ten world regions, eight academic fields and a wide spectrum of ideological perspectives, as well as culture, gender and race diversities. Likewise, teams of authors and discussants for the projects are assembled with the principle of diversity at the fore. The programme workshops move between sites in different world regions, and programme presentations are given to diverse audiences. Programme outputs are summarized in seven languages, and publication arrangements for the book series are negotiated with the aim of reaching – and encouraging debate amongst – diverse readerships. Diversity is a conscious priority in assembling the database and designing the website. In such ways the BGD programme enacts diversity not only in a general rhetoric of respect and tolerance, but in each concrete step of its execution.
Regarding the second methodological pillar, praxis, the BGD programme throughout interlinks theory and practice, researchers and practitioners, intellectual labours and political struggles. Past explorations of global democracy have tended to be either highly abstract academic treatises or loosely formulated activist pamphlets. As a result, much scholarly work on the subject has found little resonance in non-academic civil society and official circles, while many practitioner propositions have lacked conceptual clarity and precision. A more meaningful and effective exercise in building global democracy would overcome this researcher-practitioner divide. A mutual learning exercise between academic and policy circles has advantages including: (a) ‘reality checks’ for the researchers; (b) practitioner stake in the research, thereby enhancing the amount and quality of evidence as well as the way that it is analyzed; and (c) capacity building for practitioners (in accordance with BGD programme objectives), as participation in the work sharpens their thinking about global democracy and their abilities to promote it.
Hence, although the BGD programme takes a scholarly lead, the activities involve continual inputs from official and civil society circles, and the outputs simultaneously address academic and lay audiences. Members of the convening group have extensive collective experience in interaction with practitioner circles and the preparation of action-oriented studies. In contrast to the highly abstract character of much existing academic writing on global democracy, commissioned authors in the BGD programme draw on concrete experiences to inform their contributions and build on the findings of their analyses to make explicit specific proposals for action. Discussants and other participants at the workshops are invited from governance circles and non-academic civil society, and the policy briefs that emanate from these events summarize the proceedings for practitioners as well as researchers. The BGD programme database encompasses both academic and lay correspondents, and the website is constructed so as to address the two audiences simultaneously. Chapters in the BGD books develop academic analyses, to be sure, but in non-technical language that is accessible to practitioner readers.
Regarding its third methodological cornerstone, reflexivity, the BGD programme is conducted with an ongoing critical regard to its internal power relations and its own democratic credentials. Most existing literature on global democracy adopts a pose of presumed ‘objectivity’, undertaking little self-examination as regards the particular socio-historical context that a given argument invariably reflects and the political interests that it invariably promotes, whether explicitly or implicitly. Unreflexive authors and activists are then surprised when propositions that they assumed would gain universal endorsement attract little following and in some cases instead encounter charges of cultural imperialism, capitalist hegemony, sexism and the like.
To reduce these dangers the BGD programme gives continual attention to issues of power and democracy in its own operations. Power relations are addressed explicitly – inter alia in the convening group, in the workshops and in the outputs – in the expectation that open discussion of these matters will allow power to be exercised positively (in terms of enablement, facilitation and inclusion) rather than negatively (in terms of repression, obstruction and exclusion). Particular efforts are made to counteract arbitrary social hierarchies that could compromise the democratic credentials of the programme (e.g. in relation to age, class, country, culture, gender, race and sexuality). A positive orientation to power informs inter alia the selection of programme participants, the language and translation of proceedings and publications, the sitings of events, and the administration of programme finances. Since the BGD programme is an academic-led exercise, the profile of conveners and other contributors is biased towards older age groups and professional classes, but deliberate efforts are made wherever possible to reduce these imbalances.
To monitor these and other issues the BGD programme practices reflexive democratic accountability along the four parameters of transparency, consultation, evaluation and correction. Transparency is advanced in the programme by making public all of its proceedings, including this prospectus, the minutes of convener group meetings, workshop schedules, funding arrangements, and of course the various publications. Consultations with interested parties regarding programme and project design and execution are held on an ongoing basis: through the convening group; with authors; with other workshop participants; with correspondents on the database; and through an open invitation for comment on the website. Evaluation of programme progress and results is undertaken through: regular meetings of the convening group; an annual report for public posting on the BGD website; reports to funders; questionnaires distributed to participants in the various workshops and public presentations; feedback from support staff who have helped organize the events; and peer review of programme publications. Where these consultations and evaluations warrant it, the programme will be correctively adjusted.
With this reflexive awareness of power relations and democratic accountability it may be hoped that the conduct of the BGD programme itself illustrates and advances processes of building global democracy.