| Evaluative Democracy-- International Institution Model |
The Model is intended for international institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Court of Justice. Also, the Model describes a basic operational framework for the institutions. The intent of the Model is to ensure, within limits, that the global institutions are used for the collective interest of the world rather than the self-interest of individuals and/or organizations like countries and transnational corporations.
The Global Forums are chaired by a fifty-person Member Panel to decide the basic collective priorities of the world. Members of the panel would be randomly selected from any adult of a member country, in good standing, wanting to be on it. Moreover, members would be in proportion of population. (I.e. a more populated member country would likely have more members on the Panel than a less populated member country.) An evaluation test would be conducted to screen candidates for the Member Panel, in order to ensure a quality of result.
The Panel would hold public forums in every country, and open to all citizens of the country. (Though physical space will limit the number of persons actually present. The Panel's decision-making would entail an evaluation of the proposed priorities in terms of their more soundness. Also, the Panel can ask relevant experts to present information.)
It should be noted that the Panel is only required to determine basic priorities, rather than specific priorities. And priorities must pertain to the world as a whole.
Examples of possible basic collective priorities would be clean drinking water (including adequate protection of watersheds), clean air (which entails pollution control), adequate housing, low unemployment, preserved environment, financial soundness, reasonable urban congestion, low crime rate, adequate health care, and responsible, ethical, legal foreign relations. The Panel would clearly define the priorities, and prioritize them.
The evaluation of candidates (for Main positions within a Institution) by the Member Evaluation Committees would be based on what candidate is more sound in terms of the basic collective priorities of the world.
Member-initiated evaluations would be restricted to gross failure of a member to adhere to the basic collective priorities of the world and gross misconduct.
Notes: