Guardian of Democratic Values versus Representative of World Regions: The G8 and the G20 in a Quest for Legitimacy

Given our pluralistic world today, the G8 is an anachronism. How did the more than three-decades-old club of Western nations manage to prevail? In the light of the rise of the G20 after the financial crash in 2008, this question is even more relevant: the G8 was faced with a severe legitimacy crisis, while the G20 had to establish itself as a new governance platform. By making use of the concept of self-legitimation, this paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of how both clubs ended up in a setting of coexistence rather than replacement of the G8 by the G20. It asks for the practices employed by the clubs to each claim for a relevant and legitimate position within the network of international actors. Given their relative similarity in terms of informality, exclusiveness, and flexibility, the main argument is that both needed (and need) to carefully position themselves as distinct in order to make it more likely to prevail and to become perceived as worthy to adhere to. By focusing on two informal clubs rather than on formalized IOs, the analysis complements ongoing research on the self-legitimation of international institutions. Three modes of public self-legitimation will be traced: legitimation policies, legitimation talk and nonverbal self-presentations. Based on document and evaluation analysis and a reconstruction of ideal type photographs (1975-2013), the paper shows how both institutions present themselves as inclusive and accountable managers for the benefit of all. Despite these similarities, the study reveals that the G8 is highlighting its “like-mindedness”, whereas the G20 is emphasizing its greater representativeness to appear as distinct and individually justified. This normative as well as de facto division of labour makes it more likely for the G7/8 to prevail, even in – or even because of – today’s more pluralistic world.