valsword: SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN A NEW ERA, Towards a New Global Covenant

By: Marion Valentine
April 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Social democracy in a new era

Thus, while the concepts and values of social democracy are of enduring significance, the key challenge today is to elaborate their meaning, and to re-examine the conditions of their entrenchment, against the background of the changing global constellation of politics and economics.

In the current era, social democracy must be defended and elaborated not just at the level of the nation-state, but at regional and global levels as well. The provision of public goods can no longer be equated with state-provided goods alone. Diverse state and non-state actors shape and contribute to their provision – and they need to do so if some of the most profound challenges of globalisation are to be met.

Moreover, some core public goods have to be provided regionally and globally if they are to be provided at all. From the establishment of fairer trade rules and financial stability to the fight against hunger and environmental degradation, the emphasis needs to be on finding durable modes of international and transnational cooperation and collaboration.

With this in mind, the project of social democracy has to be reconceived to include five essential goals:

* the promotion of the rule of law at the international level
* greater transparency, accountability and democracy in global governance
* a deeper commitment to social justice in the pursuit of a more equitable distribution of life chances
* the protection and reinvention of community at diverse levels
* the regulation of the global economy – through public management of global trade and financial flows and engagement of leading stakeholders in corporate governance.

Towards a New Global Covenant

At the centre of the global argument and proposals is the need to connect the security and human rights agendas and to bring them together into a coherent international framework. To achieve this a global convention is needed to draw up a new covenant for the world. Rather than set out a blueprint of what the results of such a convention should be, it is important to stress the significance of a legitimate process that both reviews the security and human rights sides of international law and also seeks to reconnect them in a global legal framework. This must, in addition, be linked to a larger social and economic framework of global governance, setting fundamental standards for all human life.

One demonstrable result of such an initiative could be new procedures at the UN to specify the set of conditions which would constitute a threat to the peace and the well-being of humankind sufficient to justify the use of force. The question is often put in the form: do we need to amend the UN Charter to create new triggers for war or armed intervention in the affairs of a country because of its internal policies?

But there is a much greater question which any such convention needs to address. Across the developing or majority world, issues of global justice with respect to government and legal human rights are not regarded as a priority on their own, and are unlikely to be perceived as legitimate concerns, unless they are connected with fundamental humanitarian issues rooted in social and economic well-being, such as basic education, clean water and public hygiene. Mary Robinson has made the case eloquently and shows how the application of existing international protocols would greatly advance the entire human rights agenda.
Mary Robinson, founder of the Ethical Globalisation Initaitive, talks to openDemocracy about deepening the world’s understanding of what human rights truly mean: see “Making ‘global’ and ‘ethical’ rhyme” (December 2003)
In other words, we need to replace the narrow scope and vision of the Washington consensus with a free and fair global economy which also supports a human security agenda. If globalisation is to be steered for the benefit of all, the best way to achieve this is by globalising social democratic concepts and values:
COMMUNIST PARTIES, BY WHAT EVER NAME EXERT INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL DEMOCRAT PARTIES

Mass organizations

As the membership of a communist party was to be limited to active cadres, there was a need for networks of separate organizations to mobilize mass support for the party. Typically communist parties have built up various front organizations, whose membership is often open to non-communists. In many countries the single most important front organization of the communist parties has been its youth wing. During the time of the Communist International the youth leagues were explicit communist organizations, using the name ‘Young Communist League’. Later the youth league concept was broadened in many countries, and names like ‘Democratic Youth League’ were adopted.

Other organizations often connected to communist parties includes trade unions, student, women’s, peasant’s and cultural organizations. Traditionally these mass organizations were politically subordinated to the political leadership of the party. However, in many contemporary cases mass organizations founded by communists have acquired a certain degree of independence. In some cases mass organizations have outlived the communist parties in question.

At the international level, the Communist International organized various international front organizations (linking national mass organizations with each other), such as the Young Communist International, Profintern, Krestintern, International Red Aid, Sportintern, etc.. These organizations were dissolved in the process of deconstruction of the Communist International. After the Second World War new international coordination bodies were created, such as the World Federation of Democratic Youth, International Union of Students, World Federation of Trade Unions, Womens International Democratic Federation and World Peace Council.

Renaming Communist Parties

A uniform naming scheme for communist parties was adopted by the Communist International. All parties were required to use the name ‘Communist Party of (name of country)’. Today, there are plenty of cases where the old sections of the Communist International have retained those names. In other cases names have been changed. Common causes for the shift in naming were either moves to avoid state repression[2] or as measures to indicate a broader political acceptance. A typical example of the latter was the renamings of various East European communist parties after the Second World War, as staged ‘mergers’ of the local Social Democratic parties occurred.

* United States - Communist Party USA, Progressive Labor Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Workers World Party, Workers Party, USA