A good example

“It’s time to put in place a system of «world governance», to bring more justice, transparency and responsibility to the world’s financial markets”, declared the “social affairs” commission of COMECE (Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community) at the end of its meeting in Paris on 8 – 9 October. After the experiences of recent weeks it seems that the whole world is ready to endorse this demand and even to fulfil it. However, the demand for “world governance”, comprising not only the financial markets but also trade policy, the protection of the environment and other important economic areas, is nothing new. In fact, in the course of recent decades many occasions have been presented to respond to the growing interdependence of this one world that is growing at an ever faster rate following innovations in the field of the information technologies and communication, as well as the rapid globalization of trade, finance and investments. But what does “world governance” mean? Simplifying, it means: governing the world without a world government. Or, in other words, the complex efforts being made by national and international players to find a solution to problems that they need to solve together, if they are to achieve their own objectives. This presupposes the development of more or less formalized procedures of communication, of opinion forming and cooperation, and the existence of international and supranational organizations able to function. On the one hand, this “world governance” temporarily finds expression in the constant expansion and simultaneous aggregation of networks of international, multinational, supranational and transnational organizations, both public and private that are integrated, supported or superimposed in intercontinental and inter-regional structures. On the other, “world governance” is realized in the norms, standards, procedures and accords created by this variety of institutions. Nonetheless, with the deterioration of the international financial crisis, all this is clearly no longer enough. To gain an idea of how to respond to the need for a further evolution of “world governance”, it’s enough to glance at the political institutional system of the European Union, in other words, “European governance”. In this case too, it’s an incomplete system, a system in the process of taking shape, and still open to various possibilities of development. It also presents similar aspects: for example, the variety of players, the sector-based procedure, and the absence of a single attribution of responsibility.A substantial difference, however, exists between “world governance” and “European governance”: for, at the basis of the political system of the Union there’s a plan that delimits everything. The plan is contained in the founding treaty of the European Union, which has remained relatively stable, in spite of the revisions to which it has been subjected in the course of its history. The system of governance of the European Union has also shown itself to be no less stable, but at the same time capable of evolving, over the decades, also in the current crisis: this was recently confirmed by the results of the latest consultations of European heads of state and of government.In this way, the European Union furnishes an example of what’s needed at the global level and of what ought to be possible to do, in the light of the new findings, or the new approaches, that can be deduced from the crisis. Already in November, at the meeting of the heads of state and of government of the world’s leading industrialized countries, we’ll see how much of all this will be realized.