Despite some limited moves toward openness and accountability, suprastate policy formation in such bodies as the World Trade Organization remains fundamentally exclusive of individuals within states. This article critiques the "don't kill the goose" arguments commonly offered in defense of such exclusions. It highlights similarities between those arguments and past arguments for elitist forms of democracy, where strict limitations are advocated on the participation of non-elites in the name of allowing leaders to act most effectively in the broad public interest. Advocated here is movement toward a strongly empowered WTO parliamentary body that would be guided in practice by a principle of democratic symmetry, attempting to match input to the increasing impacts of WTO governance. A parliament with co-decision powers broadly similar to those of the European Parliament is offered as a long-term institutional ideal.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue

Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues by Catharine A. MacKinnon
Catharine MacKinnon's fundamental claim is that the violence and abuse routinely inflicted on women by men is not treated with the same seriousness accorded to ...

Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
The Good Fight: Why Liberals--and Only Liberals--Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again by Peter Beinart
Peter Beinart's new book offers the Democratic Party a "new liberalism," a vision he bases on the party's history of moral leadership and success in ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Essay
The Human Rights Council: A New Era in UN Human Rights Work? [Full Text]
Kofi Annan did more than any UN secretary-general before him to stress the close link between human rights and peace and security. With the creation ...