Safeguarding deliberative global governance: The case of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Review of International Studies

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 511-530

  Brown, Garrett Wallace ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952629495     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: 14699044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210510000136     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Multisectoralism refers to formal governance structures or institutions that incorporate various sectors of society, or various stakeholder sectors, into the decision making process. Whereas traditional global governance has tended to be multilateral, in the sense that formal decisions were exclusively made by governmental representatives, multisectoralism refers to systems that seek to also include a broad range non-governmental groups or regional bodies. In the case of the Global Fund, governmental, regional, private foundations, businesses and people living with the diseases are formally incorporated into the governance structure. This is detailed further in section II and III below.
2. This case study is part of a larger Ford Foundation 'Global Institutional Design' grant project being conducted with David Held, Anthony McGrew & M. Koening-Archibugi (publication forthcoming). The material USed in this article was part of the GID Global Fund study that took place between 2002 and 2006. This research involved semi-structured elite interviews with Global Fund Board members, key members of the Global Fund Secretariat, 17 elite interviews in Russia, 36 elite interviews in the Republic of South Africa as well as 50 stakeholder interviews throughout the provinces of South Africa and Lesotho. Some names of the interviewees have been left anonymous by request, due to the political ramifications involved with their responses. The quotes USed in this article were selected because they were most representative of a particular viewpoint or widely held belief.
3. Will Smith and James Brassett, 'Deliberation and Global Governance: Liberal, Cosmopolitan and Critical Perspectives', in Ethics and International Affairs, 22:1 (2008), pp. 69-92.
4. Mark Warren, 'Deliberative Democracy', in A. Carter and G. Stokes, Democratic Theory Today, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), p. 196.
5. J. Fishkin, Democracy and Deliberation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991).
6. Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
7. Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
8. Shawn Rosenberg, 'An Introduction: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Research on Deliberative Democracy', in S. Rosenberg (ed.), Can the People Govern: Deliberation, Participation and Democracy, (New York, Pelgrave, 2007), p. 2.
9. Vibeke Normann Anderson & Kasper Hansen, 'How Deliberation Makes Better Citizens: The Danish Deliberative Poll of the Euro', European Journal of Political Research, 46 (2007), pp. 531-556
10. Jon Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 1.
11. S. Freeman, 'Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment', Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29:4 (2000), pp. 371-418.
12. April Carter & Geoffrey Stokes, Democratic Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), p. 11.
13. Democratic Theory Today , 2002, p. 11. Ibid.
14. J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 'Introduction', in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on reason and Politics (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997), p. ix.
15. Iris Marion Young, 'Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy', in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 120-135
16. Jurgen Habermas, 'Three Normative Models of Democracy', in Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 67-94.
17. Warren, p. 176.
18. Jurgen Habermas, Beyond Facts and Norms, trans. W. Rehg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
19. James Bohman, Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy (Cambridge: MIT University Press, 1996).
20. This position is best exemplified by J. Cohen, who states that democratic deliberation is only legitimate 'if and only if they could be the object of a free and reasoned agreement among equals'.J. Cohen, 'Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy', in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997), p. 73.
21. Variations can be found in Allen Buchanan and Robert Keohane, 'The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions', Ethics and International Affairs, 20:4 (2006), pp. 405-437
22. Jurgen Habermas, The Divided West, trans. C. Cronin (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006);
23. John Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000);
24. Anthony McGrew, 'Transnational Democracy', in A. Carter & G. Stokes (eds), Democratic Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002);
25. David Held, 'Principles of the Cosmopolitan Order', in G. Brock and H. Brighouse (eds), The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
26. This seems to be a universal requirement maintained by all those associated with deliberative theory, except for perhaps Dryzek, who maintains a more critical and 'insurgent' vision of deliberation which comes from outside formal decision making bodies. In this case, deliberation takes the form of civil society movements that are excluded from formal procedures and thus operate in a global public sphere as activists and dissenting voices. Nevertheless, Dryzek still, perhaps inconsistently, prescribes to the first and second deliberative principles mentioned above, in that there should be 'opportunities for participation by all those affected by a decision.' See Dryzek, The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, op. cit.
27. Freeman, The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism , op. cit., p. 378.
28. Young, 'Communication and the Other,' . It is important to highlight that most deliberative democrats do not view consensus as the goal of deliberation per se, but that the process of possible consensus formation, whether or not this takes place, is open to equal participation, so that the possibility of public reason formation might be achieved, op. cit., p. 122. It is important to highlight that most deliberative democrats do not view consensus as the goal of deliberation per se, but that the process of possible consensus formation, whether or not this takes place, is open to equal participation, so that the possibility of public reason formation might be achieved.
29. Carlos Santiago Nino, The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).
30. Philip Petitt, 'Deliberative Democracy, the Discursive Dilemma and Republican Theory', in J. Fishkin and P. Laslett, Debating Deliberative Democracy (Oxford, Blackwell, 2003).
31. Warren, p. 181.
32. Philip Petitt, 'Deliberative Democracy, the Discursive Dilemma and Republican Theory', Debating Deliberative Democracy (2003), Ibid.
33. Joshua Cohen, 'Deliberative Democracy', in S. Rosenberg, Can the People Govern: Deliberation, Participation and Democracy (New York, Pelgrave, 2007), p. 221.
34. Joshua Cohen, 'Deliberative Democracy', Can the People Govern: Deliberation, Participation and Democracy , 2007, p. 221., Ibid.
35. Ibid. 185.
36. Also see Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, pp. 341-79
37. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, op. cit., p. 357.
38. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms , Ibid. p. 148.
39. Anthony McGrew, 'Transnational Democracy', in A. Carter and G. Stokes, Democratic Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.
40. David Held, Democracy and the Global Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995);
41. Danielle Archibugi and David Held, Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995);
42. Richard Falk, Law in an Emerging Global Village: A Post-Westphalian Perspective (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1998).
43. James Bohman, 'International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions', International Affairs, 75:3 (1999), pp. 499-513;
44. M. Cochran, 'A Democratic Critique of Cosmopolitan Democracy: Pragmatism From the Bottom-Up', European Journal of International Relations, 8:4 (2002), pp. 517-48;
45. John Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2000).
46. Graham Smith and Corinne Wales, 'Citizen's Juries and Deliberative Democracy', Political Studies, 48:1 (2000), pp. 51-65;
47. Lawrence Pratchett, 'New Fashions in Public Participation: Towards Greater Democracy?', Parliamentary Affairs, 52:4 (1999), pp. 616-633
48. Also see the empirical studies provided in Shawn Rosenberg (ed.), Can the People Govern: Deliberation, Participation and Democracy, (New York, Pelgrave, 2007).
49. 'G7-G8 summit in Okinawa', 21-23 July 2000, {http://ec.europa.eu/comm/ external-realtions/g7-g8/ intro/conclusion.htm}. Emphasis added.
50. Ibid. According to the Global Fund website, 'they agree that, although existing bilateral and multilateral development institutions play important roles, they alone cannot channel the large volume of new resources necessary to combat the global health pandemics of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.' {http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/about/road/history/default.asp}.
51. Kofi Annan, 'Secretary-General Proposes Global Fund for Fight Against HIV/AIDS and Other Infectious Diseases at African Leaders Summit', UN Press Release, SG/SM/779/REV.1, April 2001.
52. Dr. Peter Piot, Director of UNAIDS and GF Board member, interview, London, 8 February 2005.
53. Dr. Fransen, EU Commission on Human and Social Development and GF Board member, interview, London, 10 March 2005.
54. Global Fund Framework Document, Sec. III, Subsection F and H, point 9 of SS H. Communities without official governments can also apply for funding and are covered under Section VI, Subsection B, Point 7.
55. Global Fund Framework Document, Sec. IV, Subsection C.
56. Global Fund Framework Document, Section III.
57. Ibid., Section VII.
58. Board Operating Procedures, {www.theglobalfund.org}, pg. 5.
59. Brian Brink, Alternative GF Board member for the Private Sector interview, South Africa (1 September 2005).
60. Quotes taken from Vuyo Ray Mabope, Ex- Global Fund Representative for Southern Africa Region, interviewed, (19 August 2005).
61. This interviewee wished to remain anonymous for political reasons.
62. Young, 'Communication and the Other', op. cit., p. 122.
63. Brian Brink, Global Fund Board Alternate for the Private Sector, interview, (1 September 2005).
64. Vuyo Ray Mabope, Special Advisor to the Health Minister of South Africa and ex-Global Fund Board member, interview, (19 August 2005).
65. Health Advisor for the New Partnership for Africa's Development and the African Union, interview, (18 August 2005). Identity remains anonymous for political reasons.
66. Professor Ronnie Green, Head of Health Department, Province of KwaZulu-Natal, interview, (5 September 2005).
67. Garth Japhet, Executive Director of Soul City, interview, (31 August 2005).
68. This interviewee wished to remain anonymous for political reasons.
69. Young, 'Communication and the Other,' Executive Director of Soul City. op. cit., p. 122.
70. Warren, Executive Director of Soul City. op. cit., p. 185.
71. Also see Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, pp. 341-79.
72. However, donor countries are sending fewer representatives due to what is perceived as a 'shouting match' and an emotive assault on donor representatives by activists. For example, the US cut its delegation at the last international conference by 60 per cent - this relates to the US sending 50 representatives and scientists versus the 250 they sent to Barcelona two years prior. 'AIDS 2004: Activists Confront Bush Administration', Joe De Capua, Voice of America (19 July 2004).
73. Vuyo Ray Mabope, Special Advisor to the Health Minister of South Africa - also ex Global Fund Board member, interview, (19 August 2005).
74. Vuyo Ray Mabope, Special Advisor to the Health Minister of South Africa - also ex Global Fund Board member, (2005), Ibid.
75. This interviewee wished to remain anonymous for political reasons.
76. Mr. Shakalala, Head of Treasury Department, Province of KwaZulu-Natal, interview, (2 September 2005).
77. Mr. Shakalala, Head of Treasury Department, Province of KwaZulu-Natal, (2005), Ibid.
78. Dr. Ivan Toms, Director of the Department of Health Cape Town, interview, (22 August 2005).
79. Mariette Williams, Networking AIDS Community of Western Cape, interview, (23 August 2005).
80. Ruairi Brugha, et. al., 'The Global Fund: Managing Great Expectations', The Lancet, 364 (July 2004).
81. 'NGO Participation in the Global Fund', Review Paper, International HIV/AIDS Alliance (October 2002), p. 2.
82. NGO Participation in the Global Fund', Review Paper, International HIV/AIDS Alliance .(2002). Ibid., p. 2.
83. Garrett Wallace Brown, 'Multisectoralism, Participation and Stakeholder Effectiveness: Increasing the Role of Non-state Actors in The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria', Global Governance, 15:2 (2009).
84. Mark Warren, 'Institutionalizing Deliberative Democracy', in Rosenberg, Global Governance. op. cit., p. 276.
85. Mark Warren, 'Institutionalizing Deliberative Democracy', Global Governance, p. 276, Ibid.
86. Joshua Cohen, 'Deliberative Democracy', in Rosenberg, Global Governance. op. cit., p. 231.
87. Jane Mansbridge, 'Deliberation Democracy or Democratic Deliberation', in Rosenberg. Global Governance. op. cit., p. 263.