From Donald Trump’s “America First” to Boris Johnson’s “Take Back Control,” national populists across the globe share a common playbook: reclaiming sovereignty as a magic bullet for domestic political woes. But despite mounting evidence that renationalization neither works well nor delivers the prosperity it promises, this populist rhetoric remains a persistent theme in national election campaigns. It even makes waves in regional elections, where regional governments have little sway over globalization processes. The “I’ll fix it nationally” attitude is probably more seductive than the fact that neither internal nor external security can be guaranteed through national efforts alone, nor can migration movements be controlled regionally. This also applies to energy security, healthcare, the fight against climate change, increasing prosperity, and supplying the population with key goods and services.
In reference to the early 19th-century Danish fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” one must tirelessly point out the misleading polemic of renationalization as a solution when nationalism begins to resurface in the mainstream of many countries. It is like the emperor in the tale who parades with no clothes. Everyone sees it, but only an innocent child dares to speak up.
The reality is that renationalization tends to worsen problems rather than solve them.
Anyone who believes we should disconnect ourselves from global knowledge and culture, the international labor market, and global trade flows is like someone who thinks that closing their eyes during hide-and-seek will prevent them from being found.
This isn’t just a theoretical debate, as recently witnessed in England. Brexit has not led to more independence and prosperity, but rather the opposite: London is increasingly sinking into economic chaos, which is having a negative impact on jobs, purchasing power, culture, and, ultimately, the political mood in the country. Despite all the promises made during the Brexit campaign, the British healthcare system has also suffered due to renationalization. A quick look at Germany’s healthcare system, for example, should suffice: In many cases, it is people with a migrant background who work in hospitals, retirement homes, and care facilities because demand can hardly be met without them.
When you realize that a car consists of more than 10,000 individual parts produced in many different countries and that a modern economy is dependent on people and their knowledge worldwide, the negative outcome of Brexit comes as no surprise. It was, in fact, predictable. Multilateralism and international exchange create win-win situations, while a return to nationalism results in a zero-sum power game or even regression in societal development.
The “me first” approach is clearly not a sustainable concept—it doesn’t even work in small social groups free from authoritarian rule.
As in the latter half of the 20th century, global interdependence is the analytical core of sovereignty—that is, it involves “reciprocal sovereignty.”This reality should be honestly stated in election campaigns—and must have institutional consequences. The truth is that the challenges causing violent upheavals in nation-states and regions in the 21st century are often global in origin. Therefore, multilateral structures must be strengthened to bring key players together to solve global problems.
Any honest candidate should acknowledge the limited national capacity for solutions and emphasize the challenging path of multilateralism, or rather, their intention to promote international solutions.
While the United Nations system already does good work in many areas daily, despite often being unjustly criticized, the G20 system should be strengthened to effectively accelerate poverty eradication, the fight against climate change, regulation of the digital world, fair trade, and migration management for the global common good. In recent years, the G20 has done a lot to increase its international acceptance, including putting forward substantive content proposals.
Even after the inclusion of the African Union, the “Group of 20” only consists of 21 members and is, therefore, a far cry from the almost universal representation of the UN; however, the United Nations also has a wholly anachronistic and unrepresentative composition in its most important body, the Security Council. The G20 governments represent almost two-thirds of the world’s population and four-fifths of the global GDP, and all continents are represented. Civil societies are also included through so-called engagement groups, such as leading global think tanks, trade unions, women’s and youth associations, business representatives, and local governments. At the same time, the G20 can still function efficiently, coordinating well and often being innovative in its policy proposals.
However, the G20’s general institutional structure is not the only impressive aspect. The many well-founded proposals, for instance, on better financing national budgets, regulating international migration and the digital age, or fighting climate change, make us wish that governments, parliaments, and the media would draw more intensively from this pool of problem-oriented solutions. However, for more of these interesting G20 proposals to reach national capitals and the public, some reforms are needed within the system. It’s high time to give multilateralism a substantial boost in terms of global governance.
There are at least three areas where the need for reform is obvious: First, the G20 must evolve from an advisory body to a decision-making one. So far, the G20 is an informal body that does not pass legally binding resolutions. However, given the urgency of many global challenges, it’s hard to justify the many detours required to reach legally binding regulations when the G20 members have already agreed on a course of action. In concrete terms, the G20 should be transformed into an international organization, similar to how the Commission on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) became the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in the 1990s.
Second, the G20’s representation must be further improved. Although the G20 has taken important steps to improve representation by admitting new members and regularly inviting guests, granting membership to countries most affected by climate change could send a strong signal that those causing crises are involving those affected in finding solutions. Furthermore, civil society groups should be formally included and their participation enabled, even though this may have financial implications. National parliaments and the European Parliament will have to decide for themselves whether they wish to accompany the G20 institutionally. Parliamentary assemblies of other international organizations could serve as examples, as these already strengthen intergovernmental organizations through better representation and substantive input.
Third, the organization of the G20 must become permanent and professionalized. Until now, it has been the responsibility of the annually rotating G20 presidency to set priorities and prepare the respective meetings. While countries with a functioning administration and vibrant civil society can carry out a G20 presidency competently and effectively, this is not always guaranteed. Therefore, a permanent secretariat should be established to prepare the countless G20 meetings, set priorities, draft resolutions and agendas, monitor compliance, and ensure the continuous involvement of civil society.
This article was first published in German on IPG Journal.