Most of the talk in recent years concerning reform of the United Nations centers on the addition of countries from the South, such as Brazil, India and South Africa, as permanent members of the Security Council, in addition to the "big powers" (US, UK, France, Russia and China).
There are two different approaches to talk of reform of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. One approach calls for democratizing the decision-making, so that it is one nation one vote instead of the present system by which the number of votes reflect the amount of money invested by the rich countries. The other approach favors getting rid of these institutions altogether and putting global economic decisions in the hands of the specialized agencies that are now democratic, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Over the years there have been proposals to add another forum alongside the General Assembly that would have representatives from civil society organizations rather than Member States. This raises the question of which of the tens of thousands of civil society organizations would be chosen, since there is always the question of their democratic legitimacy.
The question of reforming the UN depends upon the question of reforming the state, because as long as the state is tied to the culture of war, a United Nations based on the state will also be tied to the culture of war.
Adding a few more Member States as permanent members of the Security Council might reduce the dominance of the rich countries of the North, but how could it address the fundamental contradiction that all states are involved with the culture of war?
