Atheoretical Discourse

Title of the Paper:

“Towards Democratization of World Trade Organization:ATheoretical Discourse”

-Dr.D.S.Makkalanban

Assistant Professor of Political Science

National Law School of India University (NLSIU)

P.O. Bag 7201

Nagarbhavi, Bangalore - 560 072

Karnataka, India

Cell: 08762090978

Introduction:

The progression of globalization seems to undermine the nation state as well as international organization making them as facilitators. As international organizations (IOs) have grown in number and influence, there has been an increase in calls for their democratization. One of the principal ways they can improve their nature is by becoming more transparent in decision making with following democratic norms. However, in order to gain sufficient

Democracy is treated here as a form of decentralized separation of powers, with the installation of checks and balance (retaliatory measures), i.e. mechanisms of domination control (QUAD), aimed at guaranteeing liberal (market) freedoms and political participation (to negotiations) which can only be understood as aefficient element within such arrangements. The political order rests principally upon peaceful and orderly cooperation among diverse power groups, one of which is the state itself, and its democratic content is limited to decisions mediatedof elites. Lindblom, who is a critical supporter of the 'realist' theory of democracy, prefers to speak of 'polyarchy' rather than 'democracy', and maintains that the dichotomy between political and economic positions of power is not only fundamental, but is also a structural element which safeguards freedom. In this formulation, capitalism is identified with democracy and the capitalist economy is asserted a condition for democracy, thus robbing the latter of its role in promoting evolutionary change within society. This depends upon certain critical factors that have been taken for analysis includes environmental,negotiations, operational procedures, undertakings and decision making process (formal and

Robert Cox and Harold Jacobson" provided one example of the political scientist’s examination of environments. First, they distinguish between the general and specific environments (which is not unlike the distinction between environments and task environments in organizational theory). General environments are those that affect all international organizations, specific environments affect only some, depending on the issue. Further, they conceive the general environment in terms of states, their characteristics and broad policies. Only states can become members of international organizations, and states are the principal units in world politics and the dominant mode for organizing human and physical resources. Cox and Jacobson recognize that this focus on states has some limitations, since it excludes transnational corporations, religious groups, or other "emerging forms of behavior and value." Aside from this specific treatment of the impact of environments on influence, work on international organizations has generally neglected this world of external conditions. The more common treatment is found in Jacobson's general work, International Organizations: Networks of