Introduction
The modern world faces a challenge that Robert Dahl termed the third democratic transformation. The traditional nation-state is no longer a sufficient vessel for political processes, as key issues—from climate change to capital flows—do not recognize borders. This article analyzes how to transform democracy into a supranational system without losing its fundamental values. Readers will learn why the global order requires a new procedural architecture and how Dahl’s thought allows us to design a collective reason capable of managing planetary interdependence.
The Transformation Aporia and the Complex Demos
The primary problem, known as the aporia of the third transformation, is the lack of a unified global people. Before a world constitution can be established, we must determine if a global demos is even possible. Robert Dahl pointed out that national democracy rests on five criteria, such as enlightened understanding and control of the agenda. Today, however, state sovereignty is becoming a fiction, as the web of causal links (migration, cybersecurity) forces decisions beyond national borders. Retreating into autarky is merely a surrender and a loss of control over one's own fate.
The solution is not a single world government, but a complex demos. This is a multi-level community where various political units participate in a coordination matrix. Instead of imposing will, supranational institutions should act as platforms for deliberation. Such a model preserves local autonomy while addressing problems that no state can solve alone. It is a transition from imperial democracy to procedural democracy, based on mutual understanding.
Dahl’s Criteria and the Relational Common Good
Visions of democracy vary across continents: Europe emphasizes law, America focuses on federalism, Africa on rectifying injustice, and Asia on harmony. These differences are an asset, not an obstacle. Adapting Dahl’s five criteria to a global scale requires new mechanisms. Voting equality must account for power asymmetries through double-majority systems, and inclusion should encompass everyone affected by a decision's consequences, regardless of citizenship.
On this scale, the common good ceases to be the sum of national interests. It becomes a relational good, emerging through the process of dialogue. The pillars of a new constitution are not ready-made recipes, but metaprocedures that allow different value systems to be translated into a common language of action. Crucially, this involves modeling the cross-border effects of decisions and subjecting them to democratic judgment. Here, the common good is a process that arises when no party can arbitrarily invalidate the claims of others.
Polyarchy of Polyarchies and the Epistemic Audit
Implementing global democracy faces an impossibility triangle: the difficulty of reconciling effectiveness, speed, and democratic legitimacy. The solution lies in establishing ex ante protocols, allowing for efficient ex post execution of decisions. The target structure is a polyarchy of polyarchies—a decentralized network of institutions (Metapolis) lacking a single center of power but possessing built-in mechanisms for criticism and error correction.
The foundation of this order must be an epistemic audit. In a world governed by algorithms and climate models, enlightened understanding requires the transparency of knowledge structures. Auditing institutions would verify whether the foundations of global decisions are falsifiable and free from information monopolies. Third-scale democracy is an unfinished project—an endless series of iterations that, instead of an ideal world, offers a fair method for resolving conflicts and managing planetary risk.
Summary
The third transformation of democracy is a necessity driven by global interdependence. Moving from the nation-state to a supranational collective reason requires abandoning dreams of a world government in favor of fair procedures. In a world of rising tensions, can we create a flexible adaptation system capable of incorporating diverse perspectives? Or will the pursuit of a global common good deepen the chaos? The answer depends on our ability to design a framework for coexistence before the consequences of our decisions spiral out of control.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF