ABSTRACT
Issues concerning initial membership in a United Democratic League (UDL) are sometimes linked with a normative claim that definitions of “democracy” are arbitrary and assessments of democratic credentials merely strategic. A more extreme version of the arbitrariness objection charges that a democratic league would always be a front for domination of the world by western powers, led of course by a bellicose United States bent on recolonizing non-western peoples. Among ethicists and philosophical theorists, the most popular argument against a democratic league asserts that it would be morally better, or more politically effective to improve on the UN structure, which has the great advantage of already existing. Singer's world parliament differs mainly in giving non-democratic governments some presence. Meanwhile, associate members with some democratic credentials might be offered one voting representative with low voting weight in the UDL Parliament—a version of Singer's idea.
