The UN; the WTO; the IMF; the ILO; all of these are hugely significant actors that influence our lives. But none of these bodies can be held accountable to the people. Our lives are being increasingly dictated by unelected bodies. Even the EU, despite its elected parliament, cannot be called democratic. Whilst it has a democratically elected parliament, their powers are highly limited. The real power lies with the European Council and the European Commission.

Consider the technological, ideological, and political aspects of globalisation, they encompass measures that are employed by countries (particularly those in the West) to 'spread' democracy in other parts of the world. Yet, are these measures legitimate? How far should international and external actors go in 'invading' a particular non-democratic state? The use of military forces, and the overarching international organisations, both have been brought about by globalisation, are used in the worldwide drive of democratisation. Isn't the intervention of a state and thereafter, the 'forceful' implementation of a democratic system, itself a non-democratic mean? The disregard of state's sovereignty in the process is an irony. More importantly, the 'spread' of ideology - in this case, democracy - is made possible again by globalisation. The extent to which this should be promoted remains a contestable topic. This activity is carried out mainly by countries in the West. How is it itself an event of 'democratic nature' if only the West is consulted?