What Is Fair in a Global Democratic Governance Structure?
 Copyright American Society of Association Executives Reprinted by Permission

Author
Steven M. Worth

Publication
ASAE Global Link Newsletter

Publication Date
May 1, 2000

Plexus Consulting Group, LLC
1620 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone:  202-785-8940
Fax:      202-785-8949
Email:   info@plexusconsulting.com

For the sake of democracy, associations can undergo some strange contortions in their decision-making processes and structures. Sometimes, trying to do what is right can cause awkward consequences. Do any of the following scenarios seem familiar?

• Popular votes consistently overrule the will of the minority; the only problem is, the minority in this instance contributes most of the association's funding.
• Misunderstandings on a vote cause unexpected questions, complications, and tensions, causing more difficulties than the original question was worth.
• A vote on a controversial issue causes the membership to split into factions that threaten to tear the association apart.

In a U.S.-focused -- or any single-country-focused -- organization, these problems usually can be avoided or worked out through rapid, targeted communication and, if necessary, face-to-face meetings. But in international or global organizations -- where there are language, cultural, and legal differences, as well as difficulties caused by national pride and simple logistics -- such problems are both more common and more difficult to resolve.

Consider the Differences
One nation/one vote may work for the United Nations, but experience has shown that this is a difficult governance model to apply to associations. It is ineffective for international associations to treat their members as if there were no national differences among them. And one nation/one vote ignores the very real differences in size (in terms of both headcount and financial contribution) that exist among countries. Therefore, a governance structure must deal with members on a country-by-country basis.

Effectively run international associations recognize that from an operational point of view, member service programs must be supported by national structures. The successful design and delivery of membership services on a global basis depends on a system that is sensitive to the language, cultural, and legal differences among members. Such a structure might include a system of service- or activity-focused committees or staffing structures in which each national constituency is represented.

But for governance matters -- where issues of global standards and policies and questions of revenue and disbursement are decided -- international associations need to devise a system of weights and balances that can address all of the following real-life scenarios:

• A country accounts for 40 percent of the global membership but contributes 80 percent of the financing for the global organization.
• Another developing country has three times more members than the next largest country but contributes only a small portion of the overall budget.
• Europe votes as a bloc to make it a powerful political influence within the global organization, but is consumed by so many internal needs among its scores of countries (some more developed than others) that it seeks to keep badly needed resources to itself.
• Members from smaller, poorer countries rarely can find the funds to participate in international meetings.

In each of these situations, critical portions of a global organization's membership can feel disenfranchised or "used and abused" unless a fair governance structure is devised. However, most international associations have found that these and other problems can be addressed by finding answers to two key areas of concern: 1) linking revenues to benefits and 2) devising a system of weighted representation that takes into account both headcount and financial contribution.

Linking Benefits to Revenues
Money is a sensitive matter and almost always a source of contention. No one likes to pay dues, and almost everyone in a global organization feels that he or she does not get his or her money's worth. The key to avoiding most problems caused by money is to build a structure around sources of non-dues revenue. If members want the products and services offered by their global organizational structure, they will buy them. If global products and services cannot be identified, that is perhaps a sign that a large, more centralized global structure is not needed.

Weighted Voting
Most successful global organizations have boards of directors that represent the largest national members, calculated by headcount and level of financial involvement. Most also include on their boards regional representatives whose responsibility is to represent the interests of the smallest national members in their respective regions. And most have succeeded in constructing a weighted voting system whereby the strength of a board member's vote depends on the size of the national membership he or she represents as well as the amount of the financial participation in the global organization.

These board representatives in turn are chosen by their national or regional organizations, and travel expenses to board meetings are paid for by the global organization. Board officers are chosen from among the board members and by the board members themselves.

Building a "fair" democratic structure for a global organization takes a great deal more thought, work, patience, and creativity than many might first believe. But, as Churchill would have said, the alternative is much worse.