The political ideal of democracy, despite persistent controversy over its meaning, has been progressively adopted by the people of the world, but existing institutions of global governance fare poorly when confronted with even the loosest definitions of democracy. Most people on the planet have little knowledge about existing global governance institutions. Democracy at the level of nation-states, although a laudable objective and, in many cases, an invaluable achievement, does not lead to global democracy, as it informs little about relations between nation-states or about governance at the global level. Current global governance institutions are, for the most part, reflections of the outcomes of the Second World War.
The Global Democracy Forum aims to globalize Democracy through forums held in different countries, trying to bring together those who believe in full democracy. Our aim is to hold events, congresses, symposiums and others and articulate democracy in the Nations most weakened by autocracy.
Let's globalize democracy in every sense, bringing to all peoples and nations the importance of having a government regime capable of serving all citizens of the same territory, allowing them their rights and the free expression of ideas and ideas. expression. The most frightening thing about this danger is that it arises from the democratic sphere itself, when mutually shared values and mechanisms acquire an "unrestrained" (hubris), that is, when there is an excessive and distorted use of such values.
This happens when the ideals of democratic life such as progress, freedom or people are absolutized to such an extent that they become elements of coercion of communities and individuals. The people, freedom, progress are constitutive elements of democracy; but if one of them emancipates itself from its relations with others, thus escaping any attempt at limitation and erecting itself as unique and absolute, they become threats: populism, ultraliberalism, messianism, in short, these intimate enemies of democracy.
Democracy is a controversial concept both in theory and in practice, even at the national level (Robinson, 1996). Even more controversial is the idea of a global democracy. Most scientists politicians do not use this notion at the global level and, when some does, immediately raises the question of European cultural hegemony and relevance of the idea of democracy for non-European civilizations. For many, global democracy is simply the sum of a number growing number of national democracies – representative regimes in which impartial elections choose the political leaders of the national state.
This is the most recurrent theme in the social science literature on democratization and constitutes the basic reference of most discourses in world politics when states seek to justify their actions by appealing to the idea of democracy. But a growing number of transnational activists argue that global democracy should mean much more than that.
The people of the world live in a single social system, and decisions about what will happen in that system constitute the main points for understanding the meaning of global democracy. In such a democracy, the majority of Earth's people would have the power to influence decisions that affect their lives.
The mere sum of national democracies does not necessarily lead to global democracy, as there is inequality of power between national states and the question of a global democracy depends significantly on the nature of relations between national states. When problems are global, democracy must be global, which means that the majority of the people on Earth should be able to significantly influence the institutions of world governance.
Such institutions have developed over the past centuries and, therefore, an analysis of the possibilities of a global democracy must start from knowledge of the historical evolution of global governance. The world is experiencing a record wave of autocratization, according to scholars, we call it the third wave of autocratization, says the V-Dem Institute report, and it may have reached its worst-case scenario. The material published annually is considered one of the global references in classifying political regimes.
The warning of concern intensifies, as countries that are moving towards autocracy have large populations, together accounting for 43% of the global population. In 1999, only 3¢ of the global population lived in countries that were undergoing processes of authoritarianism.
.
54 current authoritarian governments
.
.
Os governos autoritários são regimes no quais o poder é concentrado em uma pessoa ou em um grupo pequeno que impõe sua autoridade por meio de força militar, poder bélico, propagandas de valorização do regime e do ditador, repressão e censura de opositores, violação dos direitos e liberdades individuais.
Ranking de regimes autoritários Posição País
114 Jordânia
114 Kuwait
116 Mauritânia
117 Palestina
118 Iraque
119 Angola
120 Moçambique
121 Gabão
122 Myanmar
122 Nicarágua
124 Camboja
125 Etiópia
126 Togo
127 Níger
128 Catar
129= Ruanda
129 Zimbábue
131 Comores
132 Suazilândia
132 Guiné
13 Congo (Brazzaville)
134 Rússia
136 Vietnã
137 Egito
137 Omã
139 Cazaquistão
140 Venezuela
141 Afeganistão
141 Camarões
143 Cuba
144 Djibouti
145 Emirados Árabes Unidos
146 Azerbaijão
147 Sudão
148 Guiné-Bissau
149 Bahrein
150 Bielorrússia
151 Irã
152 Eritreia
153 China
154 Burundi
155 Laos1
56 Líbia
157 Usbequistão
158 Iêmen
159 Arábia Saudita
159 Tajiquistão
161 Guiné Equatorial
162 Turcomenistão
163 Chade
164 Síria
165 República Centro-Africana
166 República Democrática do Congo
167 Coreia do Norte
.
.