Not too far back in the past, Democracy has always been associated with the transition of societies from kingdoms to states. The 1776 American Revolution and the 1789 French Revolution triggered a world-wide desire of change from being ruled by a monarch to a political system where the people rule themselves, that is, a democracy.

For decades, these independent nations were able to function more or less autonomously from one another. Indeed, there were issues on which they had to agree in order to live harmoniously. In recent times, however, there have been increasingly more signs of the need for the world to be functioning, no longer strictly as independent nations that tend to isolate themselves from the others, but as a system of nations that cooperate internationally in order to achieve a shared common good.

It all started with more frequent and immediate contact between people who are hundreds of miles from one another through the increased availability of access to the internet. This was followed by greater possibilities of visiting places that were once too far away but are now reachable because of the affordability of international transport. The increased intercommunication and interaction eventually opened the doors to financial interdependence via economic globalization.

These three factors paved the way to the appearance of events which, in the past, would have had only local repercussions but which now clearly affect and involve the whole world.

In another part of the world, conflict is already brewing between a military giant and a defenseless nation. China unilaterally made a decision to construct facilities on some islands in the South China Sea claiming that, historically-speaking, those islands belong to them. But history also clearly shows that those islands are under dispute, so China cannot really categorically say that history is in their favor. The move has been seen by the Philippines as a threat and, because of this, the nation has sought international intervention to support their claim of sovereignty over those same islands based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Medina, 2017), an agreement ratified by the member nations in the year 1985.

But words will not be enough to stop a stronger nation from desisting from its proud claim. Once that resolution was made in favor of the Philippines, the United States took that as reason enough to come to the rescue of their ally, the Philippines (US Department of State, 2022), in order to uphold the internationally-supported decision.

The discussions revolving around the election of the son of the former dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., as the president of the Philippines and the possible election of Prabowo as the next president of Indonesia have brought to the fore the importance of having sufficiently educated people (demos) who could correctly elect the best person to lead the nation. Those who think that Marcos and Prabowo are not the right choice, have attributed the flawed decision of the masses to the lack of proper education.

The education of the people seems to be an important element in the establishment of national democracy and it will probably also be a requirement for the establishment of international democracy. What type of education and how it will have to be given to the people would be important considerations in the establishment of international democracy.

As can be seen from Pope Francis’ proposal on multilateralism, authors are deliberating on the issue of whether the internationalization of democracy will require the setting up of an overarching governmental structure that will democratically rule the entire world. Most authors think that such an overarching structure will be necessary. Pope Francis, along with some others, thinks otherwise. This latter group sees so many obstacles and difficulties in establishing a government over such a large area of rule.

The need for a political system that covers the entire world will certainly require much debate and this is one topic that would be quite interesting for this symposium.

Closely related to this political structure is the economic system that will have to be put in place. Globalization has in some way anticipated this need with its international agreements on trade. But we are not certain if the present globalized system is appropriate for an internationally democratic world. The present system also clearly has its flaws. There are accusations of how the more economically powerful countries tend to bully the less powerful ones in order to gain advantages. The present system is a system involving independent nations with different or even conflicting goals. An internationally democratic economic system will have to work in a different way.

As an example of the difficulty of unifying economic systems, we find the case of Brexit. Britain keep on seeing economic disadvantages for them if they continue to be part of the European Union. For the United Kingdom, the only way they can avoid these difficulties is to leave the Union.

Thus, both the political and economic aspects of establishing a globalized democracy will provide much food for thought. These two aspects will probably be always intimately involved in any discussion about having a globalized democracy.

The internationalization of democracy (IoD) is grounded in a culture of inclusivity. Within the IoD, there is a recognition and affirmation of distinct cultural identities, and a commitment to honoring diverse traditions and beliefs within the democratic framework. At its core, the IoD is built upon the foundation of multiculturalism, which advocates for the accommodation of  specific collective or group-differentiated rights. Notably, contemporary liberal democracies are increasingly acknowledging and emphasizing these group-differentiated rights. Nevertheless, the multicultural perspective faces several challenges, including what should we do if the group rights come into conflict with individual rights?  From a multicultural standpoint, can democracy permit minority groups to restrict the individual rights of their members? 

The IoD concept resides at the intersection of two opposing forces: universality and particularity. The Internalization of democracy aligns itself with universal principles and appears to reject the idea of regionalization that is often associated with particularity. While the IoD transcends geographical and cultural boundaries through the use of technology and global policies, regionalism places emphasis on these spatial borders, both in terms of geography and culture. It is important to note that IoD does not advocate for the complete erasure of territorial boundaries, as human existence is inherently tied to specific temporal and spatial contexts. In the realm of the IoD, individuals do not forfeit their unique identities; rather, they have the opportunity to express and preserve these identities within the globalized world. This section addresses the challenge of constructing an internationalized democracy that avoids the pitfalls of regionalism while safeguarding individual identities.

The concept of the Internationalization of Democracy (IoD) represents a different approach from the conventional understanding of globalization. It does not entail the domination of economic, political, and cultural spheres by a single entity. Furthermore, the IoD rejects the idea of universalization and uniformity, emphasizing the importance of minority voices. In fact, minorities play a pivotal role within the internationalization of democracy, ensuring that democracy is truly inclusive and representative.

National democracies often grapple with the issue of marginalized groups, including children and women, persons with disabilities (PwD), indigenous communities, and religious minorities. These groups frequently find themselves voiceless within traditional democratic systems due to their limited numbers or lack of dominance. Unfortunately, indigenous communities and individuals with disabilities are sometimes dismissed as uneducated or deemed unfit to engage in democratic discourse. Additionally, minorities are often left with no option but to have their voices represented by others who are considered experts in their respective fields. For instance, in democratic process, people with disabilities are often represented by "professionalized experts." The problem of this kind of representation is it fosters a "monological" rather than a "dialogical" discourse, where minorities have no opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions and to ensure that their interests are adequately represented.

The core aim of the Internationalization of Democracy is to empower minorities and enable them to speak for themselves. It recognizes the importance of granting minorities the agency to express their opinions and actively participate in democratic processes. In doing so, the IoD addresses the historical imbalances that have silenced marginalized groups and relegates them to the periphery of democratic dialogue. This section delves into the strategies through which the empowerment of minorities can be achieved within the context of international democracy.