Is The Veto Contrary To Democratic Principles?

By Rupert Johnson

One of the basic principles of democracy is that once a legitimate vote is taken then the participants in this electoral process should abide by the decisions of the majority. Thus, it is ironic that in the United Nations, led primarily by the United States, this basic principle of democracy is being subverted by what is being called the veto.

According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia: “A veto, Latin for ‘I forbid’, is the power of an officer of the state to stop unilaterally a piece of legislation.”

This powerful undemocratic weapon has been wielded by many states including the U.S. But whereas the use of the veto is limited in the United States and other countries, the use of veto power in the U.N. is absolute. In the U.S. for example, Congress can override the presidential veto with a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

However, in the U.N. Security Council that is made up of 15 member states, once a permanent member exercises its veto power this veto cannot be overridden by a majority of the Council. It is to be noted that any of the 5 permanent members (U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France) can derail any majority decisions of the Council without the fear of voting reprisals.

Time and time again Russia and the United States in particular have used their veto power to block resolutions that call for action. Nowhere was this power of the veto more evident and undemocratic than its use to block the re-appointment of Boutros Boutros-Ghali as the U.N. Secretary General in 1996. The vote to re-appoint the Secretary General was 14-1, and the one nation that vetoed the re-appointment scored a decisive victory.

There is no doubt that the veto power has crippled the U.N. and made it impotent from its very inception on October 24, 1945. This apparent impotence has prevented the U.N. from acting decisively in the interest of world peace. This in turn has allowed vicious dictators to act with total savagery and impunity against their own citizens. They know full well that no action will be taken against them since they can rely on the support of at least one permanent member in the Security Council.

It can, therefore, be said that the U.N. Charter is blatantly flawed in that its insistence on the principle of unanimity, instead of at least a two-thirds majority vote has certainly rendered this body of nations almost useless.

There is no doubt that the principle of unanimity has undermined one of the basic principles of democracy in its emphasis on majority decisions. It is, therefore, appalling that the notion of democracy is totally foreign to the U.N. Security Council.

In view of the current turmoil in Syria I am extremely wary about Russia’s role in getting the Syrian regime to get rid of its massive stockpile of poison gas. I am afraid that Russia will probably use its veto power once again to block any U.N. resolution if that resolution makes it mandatory for Syria to destroy its stockpile of poison without concessions. Any way you look at it this is a make or break situation in the history of the U.N.

Rupert can be reached at: r.b.johnson@sympatico.ca.