No

The aim of this thesis is to investigate, explain, compare and to a degree criticize the two theories Global Stakeholder Democracy by Terry Macdonald and Transnational Discursive Democracy by John Dryzek and their respective arguments for a global democracy, by using the method of an internal idea analysis. The two main questions of the thesis are: -  With what arguments do Macdonald and Dryzek legitimize their respective form of global democracy? -  What similarities as well as differences can be found in their argumentation for their respective theory and is it possible to see any potential internal problems in their argumentation? The results show that both Global Stakeholder Democracy and Transnational Discursive Democracy can be interpreted to share the same basic way of legitimizing democracy through a liberal value and notion of autonomy. Because of the current democratic deficit on a global level, this value is threatened. Both theories therefore try to solve this problem by promoting a pragmatic theory to democratize the global political system. The study recognizes some potential problems regarding the way both Macdonald and Dryzek argue for a global democracy. In MacDonald’s theory, the potential problem concerns mainly the lack of a clear definition of the theory’s fundamental part, what a stakeholder is. The potential problems with Dryzek’s theory derive from the fact that he might put to much trust in the concept of reflexive modernization, whether his theory will be able to actually influence discourses despite a lack of formal institutions, and finally if the theory will be able to guarantee political equality in the decision making process.

Today, one of the most compelling issues facing students of environmental politics is global environmental governance’s democratic legitimacy. Critics of multilateral and transnational sustainable development negotiations and implementations perceive these as democratically deficient, due to non-state actors deciding over nation-state politics. Multilateralism is then seen as a governance structure which sacrifices state sovereignty, which is the pillar of modern democratic theory together with the concept of national demos. Yet, other theorists consider global environmental governance and multilateralism to foster democratization beyond the concept of the nation-state – something which by them is understood as necessary in a world with ever-increasing supranational environmental and developmental issues. Since 1992, the United Nations has implemented stakeholder models, meaning multi-stakeholder partnership and civil society involvement in sustainable development negotiations, as a way of raising democratic legitimacy and accountability. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals is the culmination of these efforts and the globally guiding document on the subject. The Agenda is a result of the broadest deliberation strategy ever employed by the UN. Via typological content analysis and viewing the Agenda through our theoretical framework, we understand that the UN applying stakeholder models does not necessarily mean evoking stakeholder democracy. Furthermore, democracy is largely construed as a tool for sustainable development and less as an end per se, even if the two are sometimes communicated as equal objectives. All in all, whether one interprets sustainable development negotiations as democratically legitimate or deficient depends on one’s view of democracy beyond the nation- state, as either a possible and necessary notion or a directly undemocratic one. / Idag är global miljöstyrnings demokratiska legitimitet ett av de mest åtråvärda forskningsproblemen inom miljöpolitiska studier. Kritiker av multilaterala och transnationella förhandlingar rörande hållbar utveckling och implementering uppfattar dessa som demokratiskt bristfälliga, då icke-statliga aktörer bestämmer över nationalstaters politik. Multilateralism ses då som en styrelseskicksstruktur som offrar nationalstaters suveränitet, vilket tillsammans med konceptet nationellt demos är kärnan i modern demokratisk teori. Dock anser andra teoretiker att global miljöstyrning och multilateralism kan befrämja demokratisering bortom nationalstater - något som av dessa anses som nödvändigt i en värld med ständig ökning av överstatliga miljö- och utvecklingsproblem. Sedan 1992 har Förenta Nationerna verkställt intressentmodeller, alltså multi- intressentpartnerskap och civilsamhällsinvolvering i hållbar utvecklings-förhandlingar, som ett sätt att höja demokratisk legitimitet och ansvarsskyldighet. Agenda 2030 och dess 17 globala mål för hållbar utveckling är kulmineringen av dessa satsningar, och det globalt ledande dokumentet gällande ämnet. Agendan och dess grundarbete är resultatet av den till dagsdatum största och mest omfattande överläggningsstrategi som FN någonsin använt sig av. Via typologisk innehållsanalys, och granskning av Agendan genom vårt teoretiska ramverk, så tolkar vi att FN:s genomförande av intressentmodeller inte nödvändigtvis innebär en frammaning av ett uteslutande intressentdemokratiskt ideal. I tillägg så kommuniceras demokrati mestadels som ett verktyg för hållbar utveckling, även om dessa två koncept delvis beskrivs som likvärdi ga mål. Huruvida förhandlingar kring hållbar utveckling uppfattas som demokratiskt legitima eller bristfälliga beror på tolkarens syn på demokrati utanför nationalstaten, som antingen en möjlig och nödvändig uppfattning, eller som en direkt odemokratisk sådan.