Designing Global Democracy – Transnational democratic preferences in Germany and France

Some argue that the current war against Ukraine has led to EU states forming a more united front on important policy matters. Meanwhile, the EU continues to operate through intergovernmentalism in crisis, with little progress on democratic governance reform. One major challenge for governance reform is public perceptions of the EU, with studies showing increasing Euroscepticism and polarization on European integration amongst citizens. At the same time, there are relatively few comprehensive evaluations of citizens’ preferences for transnational models of democracy. A recent study by Ghassim et al (2022) however shows a surprising support for maintaining or increasing the UN’s authority over member states, evoking the question of whether support for transnational governance among the population is perhaps higher than one might expect. This paper introduces an innovative measurement of regime preferences for global democracy. It draws on a representative sample in Germany and France, two countries central to European integration. Participants are confronted with five models of democracy in informational videos, and engage with pro and contra arguments on them. The models present different types of global democracy, but also account for solutions that might be preferred by those who reject political and economic globalization. These five models are a protectionist nation state, intergovernmentalism, multilevel democracy, cosmopolitan global democracy and postcolonial global democracy. Survey participants select a model they prefer, but also further differentiate their choice by constructing their own models. This is achieved by allowing participants to select additional features or limits. These features and limits are drawn from a range of dimensions which distinguish different models of global governance: the main decision-making entity (regions, nation states, regional government or global government), decision making modes (e.g. technocracy, representativeness, citizen participation), the distribution of power (decentralized and fluid versus centralized power), understandings of justice (such as universal and relative justice) as well as depth of global integration (concerning economic, political and welfare related issues). This design allows for a differentiated and problem-based measurement of global democracy. It speaks to prominent conflict lines on European integration (e.g. national autonomy, free movement and social welfare). Thereby, it provides for a differentiated account of EU citizens’ preferences on global democratic regimes.